| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 819 1992 SLD 819 1992 SCMR 2298 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No.476 of 1975, decision dated: 10-02-1980(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-11-1974 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.371 of 1974)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C.P. No.476 of 1975, decision dated: 10-02-1980(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-11-1974 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.371 of 1974)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. KAPOORI and 4 others
MAN KHAN and 6 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S.100---Second appeal---Finding of Courts below on question of fact even if erroneous could not be interfered with in second appeal. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.185(3)---Questions not raised in Courts below could not be considered by Supreme Court in petition for leave to appeal. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 29-11-1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing the second appeal (R.S.A. No.371 of 1974) of the petitioners, in limine. One Man Khan, son-in-law of Chutan Khan---the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners--had sold the land of his father-in-law on the basis of a general power of attorney executed in his favour Chutan Khan had challenged the sale by bringing a suit wherein it was pleaded that the said Power of Attorney was not executed by him. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge by his order dated 6-12-1969. The appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge (on 18-6-74) and 'the second appeal also failed. The main issue between the parties was whether the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner) had executed a general power of attorney m question or not? The Courts below after examining the relevant evidence came to the conclusion that Chutan had indeed executed the general power of attorney and that the same was a genuine document. The learned Judge in the High Court in his order observed that the question in dispute was one of fact which could not be interfered with in the second appeal but went on to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492