1987 PLP 1357 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD WALAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus LIAQAT HAYAT and another Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1357 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim/Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WALAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus LIAQAT HAYAT and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1357 (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 1987 PLP 1357 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim/Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1357 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD WALAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus LIAQAT HAYAT and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rehman Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 23‑12‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.847 of 1976). ‑‑‑S. 22(4)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre emption‑‑Deposit of Zar‑e‑Punjam‑‑Extension of time for making deposit of Zar‑e‑Punjum allowed by trial Court after recording finding that sufficient cause existed for the purpose‑‑Order upheld in revision‑‑No infirmity found in impugned order‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal. Hidayatullah v. Murad Ali P L D 1972 S C 69 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is by the vendees‑defendants in a pre‑emption suit. They were aggrieved by an order of the trial Court extending the date for making the deposit of Zar‑e‑punjum. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction has declined to interfere with its order. There can be little doubt that under section 22 (4), Pre‑emption Act, the trial Court was competent to extend time for making the deposit. See Hidayatullah v. Murad Ali P L D 1972 S C
69. Before making the impugned order the trial Court recorded a finding that sufficient cause existed for granting the extension. This finding does' not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed M. I. /M‑106/S Petition dismissed.