Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANZOOR AHMAD VS Respondent: KANEEZ BEGUMHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1337
1988 S C M R 1337
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, J,
MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. KANEEZ BEGUM‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.768 of 1983, decided on 7th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 21‑3‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No.461‑D/1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Question raised related to concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner‑‑Judgment of High Court not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise justifying interference by Supreme Court‑‑Petition dismissed.
Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the husband in a family matter against order dated 21‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed.
2. The respondent /plaintiff filed suit for recovery of dowry articles or their equivalent in money value, which was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. His revision also met the same fate. Therefore, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. The learned counsel has tried to show firstly, that the decree has been passed against the petitioner on account of misunderstanding about the correct position regarding return of the dowry articles and secondly, that the statement of the father of the petitioner has been utilized against him, notwithstanding the fact that he (the father) was in the position of an interested witness against the petitioner; because the latter's mother having been divorced by the former, there was ill‑will between both.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. Although he has put in considerable labour, yet the questions raised by him relate to the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, justifying interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A./M‑463/S Petition dismissed.