Pakistan Case Law← Search
1986 SCMR 1603

Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAEED And Other

Citation1986 SCMR 1603
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 488 of 1986 Writ Petition No.
Date1986-06-24
Judge(s)Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 22-4-1986, dismissing his writ petition against the order of the Election Tribunal, relating to election to a seat in the Local Government Elections.

2. Facts are that Muhammad Sharif petitioner, Sh. Muhammad Anwar Saeed respondents Nos. 1 and 3 others, contested the election from Electoral Unit No. 70-LMC, held on 28-9-1983. Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner secured the highest number of votes, defeating Sh. Muhammad Anwar Saeed respondent No. 1 by 283 votes. The latter filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal against Haji Muhammad Sharif petitioner, alleging certain illegalities and irregularities. A number of witnesses were produced by the respondent in support of the said allegations and the Election Tribunal accepted the election petition vide order, dated 5-4-1986.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which re-considered all the evidence on the record and upheld the order of the Election Tribunal.

3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent- caveator at great length. No question of law which has not already been decided by this Court was raised by the petitioner's counsel. The contentions raised by him mainly amounted to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence on the record, which has already been reappraised by a Division Bench of the High Court although it (in the High Court) was not required to do so in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. We do not, therefore, consider it proper to go through the evidence all over again merely to reverse findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below.

The petition is consequently dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search