1989 PLP 518 (SCMR)
Mst. AZIZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and others- Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 518 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AZIZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and others- Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 518 (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 1989 PLP 518 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 518 (SCMR) (Mst. AZIZ BEGUM — Petitioner Versus FATEH SHER and others- Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May' 1988.
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-6-1984 m R.S.A. No.842 of 1978).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Partial pre-emption, plea of- Such plea, a mere technicality not supported by facts and circumstances of case- Supreme Court, having already dealt with question of amendment of plaint in similar circumstances by giving; a liberal interpretation of relevant law, in a number of cases, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances of the case.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has en sought by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑6‑1984 whereby respondents' Regular Second Appeal was allowed and the decree passed in their favour by the trial Court, was restored. Learned counsel has pressed the point with regard to the bar of partial pre‑emption against the respondents. When told that the argument is based on mere technicality otherwise in so far as the facts and circumstances are concerned, there is no doubt that the suit of the respondent did not suffer from partial pre‑emption and further that this Court has dealt with the question of amendment of plaints in similar circumstances by giving a liberal interpretation of the relevant law. The learned counsel was not able to press the point any further. Two judgments of this Court in similar circumstances were also pointed out. They are Sharif v. Muhammad Amir (1985 S C M R 1214), Naeem‑ur‑Rehman v. Muhammad Anwar (1980 S C M R 1488). Two other judgments on question of amendment Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan (P L D 1985 S C 345), Muhammad Anwar v. Allah Bakhsh (1986 S C M R 1575) were also brought to our notice by R & R Officer. In the light of what has been stated above, this is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the same is refused. A.A.,/A‑382/S Leave to appeal refused.