1989 PLP 1219 (CLC)
ROSHAN DIN‑‑Appellant Versus LAL and 8 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1219 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | ROSHAN DIN‑‑Appellant Versus LAL and 8 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1219 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1219 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1219 (CLC) (ROSHAN DIN‑‑Appellant Versus LAL and 8 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Rashid and S. Fazal Abbas Bokhari for Appellant. 10 Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4, 15 & 21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Maintainability of‑‑Suit for pre emption was filed by appellant /pre‑emptor on grounds of being collateral of vendor, owner in village and co‑sharer in disputed land as well as participator in the appendages and amenities attached to land in dispute‑‑Ground of co‑sharer in disputed Khata was not available‑‑Suit, even otherwise could not be decreed in favour of pre‑emptor in view of law laid down in cases reported in PLD 1986 SC 360 and PLD 1988 SC
287. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287, ref.
Judgment & Decree
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4, 15 & 21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Maintainability of‑‑Suit for pre emption was filed by appellant /pre‑emptor on grounds of being collateral of vendor, owner in village and co‑sharer in disputed land as well as participator in the appendages and amenities attached to land in dispute‑‑Ground of co‑sharer in disputed Khata was not available‑‑Suit, even otherwise could not be decreed in favour of pre‑emptor in view of law laid down in cases reported in PLD 1986 SC 360 and PLD 1988 SC
287. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287, ref. S.M. Rashid and S. Fazal Abbas Bokhari for Appellant. 10 Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988. The suit of the appellant for possession through pre‑emption on the grounds of being collateral of the vendor, owner in the village and co‑sharer in the disputed land as well as participator in the appendages and amenities attached to the land in dispute was dismissed by the learned Trial Court holding that the ground of co‑sharer in the disputed Khata was not available and that on the other grounds the suit cannot be decreed in view of judgment is Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC
360. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on 21‑1‑1987 the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Okara which also failed and was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27‑4‑1987. Hence this second appeal.
2. It is not denied that in view of the law laid down in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC A 287 no deep eon now be passed in favour of the appellant‑pre‑emptor. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Parties are left bear their own costs.‑ , H.B.T./R‑117/L Appeal dismissed.