1989 PLP 1825 (SCMR)
ABDUL KHALIQ and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1825 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIQ and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1812) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1825 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1812) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1825 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1825 (SCMR) (ABDUL KHALIQ and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th August, 1988.
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑3‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Civil Revision No.10 of 1981). ‑‑‑S. 60‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Redemption of mortgaged property‑‑Preliminary decree in plaintiff's favour confirmed in appeal as also in revision by the High Court‑‑Leave having already been granted in a similar case in Muhammad Mast v. Inayat reported as 1987 SCMR 364, leave to appeal was granted to petitioners. Muhammad Mast v. Inayat 1987 S C M R 364 ref. Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, ORDER
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by the defendants, calls in question the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The case related to redemption of property. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed on the ground that they had not submitted a copy of the formal decree with the memorandum of appeal. This view was affirmed by the High Court while dismissing petitioners' civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on Muhammad Mast v Inayat (1987 S C M R 364), has contended that the question involved in this case is similar to the one in respect of which leave was granted in the cited case. Leave to appeal is granted in this case also. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction for the parties to file all necessary documents. It shall be heard together with the said case. A.A./A‑548/S Leave granted.