1985 PLP 1704 (SCMR)
Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1704 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1704 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1704 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1704 (SCMR) (Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 1985.
- Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-11-1983 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan in R.S.A. 190 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 21--Suit for pre-emption- -Trial Court held disputed transaction to be exchange while Appellate Court and High Court held same to be sale and thus pre-emptible--Question of transaction being of fact and same having not been vitiated on account of misreading or non-reading of relevant evidence, there was, held, no ground to interfere--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question involved in this pre‑emption matter was whether the disputed transaction was a sale or an exchange? The learned trial Court held that it was an exchange but the learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, found it to be a sale and, therefore, held that it was pre‑emptible. The High Court on second appeal, has not interfered with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal before us. The question raised is essentially one of fact. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has not been able‑ to show that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the transaction, in fact, was a sale and not an exchange is vitiated on account of misreading or non‑reading of the relevant evidence; therefore, the High Court was justified in not interfering therewith. No ground for grant of leave has been made out. Leave refused. A.A. Leave refused.