Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SALIM VS Respondent: AMIR NAWAZ KHANHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1954
1988 S C M R 1954
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
SALIM‑‑Petitioner
versus
AMIR NAWAZ KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos.99‑P, 100‑P, 101‑P and 102, decided on 21st June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 22‑5‑1988 passed in W.Ps: 189, 192 to 194 of 1988).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Cases were decided by Courts below by arriving at findings of fact and questions stood concluded by such findings which called for no interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Moulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
Nemo for Respondents (in all Petitions).
Date of hearing: 21st June, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in all these connected petitions by land tenants from the dismissal of their writ petitions against their ejectment as also recovery of rent from them.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the question of compensation has not been correctly decided. It has been observed and held in the impugned judgment on the question of improvements and compensation as follows:‑
"The finding that the Abadi constructed on the suit Khasra numbers is old one and that the defendants did not claim any improvement for it is evident from the certified copy of the written statement of the defendants which is available on this file. The defendants in their statements in Court also admitted that there are no fruit bearing trees standing in the suit land. Excepting the solitary statement of the defendants in their respective cases no independent evidence was led in support of their plea that they have made improvement in the suit land."
Learned counsel tried to assail the finding of fact on various arguments. We regret that these questions now stand concluded by such findings of fact which do not call for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
M.Y.H./S‑194/S Leave to appeal refused.