1989 PLP 336 (SCMR)
KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, MULTAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 336 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, MULTAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 336 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 336 (SCMR) (KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Nazi instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
- Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 to 10.
- Fazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
- CA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
versus MUHAMMAD INAYAT and others‑‑Respondents (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑3‑1984 in R.S.A. No. 45 of 1984). Civil Petitions Nos. 179 of 1982, 212, 863, 964, 194 of 1983, 323 to 327 of 1984, 513 and 552 of 1984. ‑‑Ss. 15 & 30‑‑Pre‑emptors not succeeding in obtaining decree till 31‑7‑1986 when judgment of Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 came into effect‑‑No decree could now be passed in favour of pre‑emptors. P L D 1986 S C 360 and P L D 1988 S C 287 rel. Civil Petition No. 212 of 1983 Muhammad Hanif Nazi instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 to
10. Civil Petition No. 179 of 1982 Fazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Civil Petition No. 194 of 1983 Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Civil Petition No. 963 of 1983 Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Civil Petition No. 764 of 1983 Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Civil Petitions No. 513 of 1984 Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner Nemo for Respondents. Civil Petition No. 552 of 1984 CA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th May; 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by pre-emptors in separate cases. According to their learned counsel,‑none of them has so far been able‑to succeed in obtaining a pre‑ A emption decree till 31‑7‑1986 when the .judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 S C. 360) came into effect. That being so as held by this Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287, no decree can now be passed in favour of the petitioners/pre‑emptors. Leave to appeal in these petitions is, therefore, refused. M.I./K‑74/S Petitions dismissed.