1993 PLP 1933 (SCMR)
REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOORA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1933 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOORA‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1933 (SCMR) (REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOORA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 27‑9‑1992 in C.R. No. 792‑D of 1983) ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Petitioner contended that respondent who was the pre‑emptor had failed to prove that he was related to the vendors‑‑‑Supreme Court after going through the pedigree tables upon which the respondent had relied considered that the question of relationship between the vendors and the respondent needed further examination and granted leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑‑The only contention raised in support of this petition which arises out of a pre‑emption suit is that the respondent who is the pre‑emptor has failed to prove that he is related to the vendors. After going through the pedigree tables upon which the respondent has relied we consider that the question of relationship between the vendors and the respondent needs further examination. Leave to appeal is granted. M.BA./R‑218/S Leave granted.