| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3289 = 1981 SLD 3289 = 1981 SCMR 691 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 900 of 1974, decided orb 25th February, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-7-1974, in W. P. 658-R of 1968).
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Muhammad Hassan Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 900 of 1974, decided orb 25th February, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-7-1974, in W. P. 658-R of 1968).
Presented By: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Muhammad Hassan Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref. Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.
ABDUL HAQUE AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
Khan MUQARRAB KHAN AND OTHERS--Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ-Decisions turning on facts-Not liable to interfer ence in limited constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Case turning on allegations of fraud-Proper remedy, held, a suit and remedy of writ petition misconceived. Date of hearing : 25th February, 1980. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioners are brothers and they were joint trans ferees from the Settlement Department of the residential portion of a property (hereinafter called the house) in Lyallpur of which particulars have been given to the petition for leave. Mr. Naazar Khan stated that they were also the transferees of a part of the shop underneath the house transferred to them. And, no 18-4-1963 the first petitioner is alleged to have made in agreement with the fourth respondent to transfer to him both the house and a portion of the shop underneath for a consideration of Rs. 20,000 out of which the first petitioner is alleged to have received only Rs, 1,000 as an earnest money. The sale was to be executed upon the receipt of the transfer documents within three months and this period was later extended by mutual agreement by another two months. Next and this is an allegation vehemently denied by the petitioners, they are alleged to have entered into an association deed on 25-7-1964 with the fourth respondent, who presented it before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 31-12-1964 in support of his application that the house be transferred to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner held an enquiry as the petitioners denied the extension of the association deed, and both parties examined evidence in support of their respective contention. However, by his order dated 15-7-1966 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the claim of the fourth respondent and held that the…