1989 PLP 1085 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1085 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1085 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1085 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1085 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus NASEER AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 17th July, 1988 in C.R. No.1346‑D of 1988). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption decree passed in pre‑emptor's favour for the first time in 1984‑‑Such case was thus not hit by the rule laid down by Supreme Court in Sardar Ali's case reported as P L D 1988 S C 287 as pre‑emption decree was passed before the target date viz. 31‑7‑1986‑‑Intervening remand order would not make any difference in circumstances. Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 rel. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Superior right of pre emption stood' concluded by findings of fact‑‑No justification made out for re appraisal of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee/defendant's side in a pre‑emption case against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's civil revision against a decree for pre‑emption originally granted by the trial Court, on 30th October, 1984. Learned counsel has contended that the decree in respondent's favour was hit by the rule laid down in the case `Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others' (P L D 1988 S C 287). He has also contended that the petitioner's plea that he had a superior right of pre‑emption therefore the suit of the respondents should have been dismissed, was not properly considered. The decree in the present case for the first time was passed in favour of the respondents in 1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was not passed prior A to 31st July, 1986. The fact that there was intervening remand order would not, in view of the principles laid down in the said case, make any difference in the circumstances of this case. The arguments of the learned counsel regarding plea of petitioner's superior right of pre‑emption based on the assertion that he was the tenant in possession of the suit land at the relevant time, stands concluded by findings of fact. No justification has been made out for reappraisal of the evidence in this behalf. None of the arguments of the learned counsel has any force. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑768/S Leave to appeal refused.