1989 PLP 1078 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB represented by Legal Heirs and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1078 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB represented by Legal Heirs and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1078 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1078 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1078 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB represented by Legal Heirs and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Dahl, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 2‑4‑1988, passed to Civil Revision No.14 of 1982). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption decree granted by Trial Court was reversed by Appellate Court on ground of limitation‑ Revisional !Court reversed Appellate Court's decree arid restored that of Trial Court‑‑Finding of Trial Court and Revisional ‑ Court being based on correct appraisal of oral and documentary evidence led by parties was unexceptionable‑ Vendee's contention that no decree having been passed before the target date vii. 31st July, 1986 as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in Sardar Ali's case reported as P L D 1988 S C 287, no decree could be passed thereafter; was devoid of force because decree in pre‑emptor's favour had been passed by Trial Court on 17th March, 1981 which was maintained by High Court‑‑Petition being devoid of merit, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. Abbottabad Circuit, dated 2‑4‑1988.
2. Ghulam Hussain respondent had brought a suit against the petitioners for possession of the land described in the plaint through pre‑emption. It was alleged that the vendor had sold the suit land for a consideration of Rs.15,000 but in order to defeat the right of pre‑emption by the respondent a fictitious amount of Rs.1,30,000 as sale piece was got entered into the sale mutation. It was also alleged in the plaint that the respondent had superior right of pre‑emption. The suit was contested and the pleadings of the parties resulted in the framing of as many as eight issues. Of them, issue No.l was with regard to the superior right of pre‑emption, issue No.2 was with regard to the cause of action and issue No.6 was whether the suit was within time. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence produced by the parties decided all the above issues ii: favour of the: respondent by holding that the respondent had superior right of pre‑emption, got a cause of action and that the suit was within time. A decree was thus passed in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 17‑3‑1981 on payment of Rs.1,30;
000. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Mansehra, who vide his judgment dated 5‑1‑1982, dealing with issue No.6 held the suit to be barred by time and thus dismissed the suit. On revision by the respondent, the learned Judge, however, vide his judgment dated 2‑4‑1988, reversed the finding of the appellate Court. He held the suit to be within time and restored the decree passed by the trial Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and are of the view that the finding of the learned trial, and revisional Courts is based on correct appraisal of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and is thus unexceptionable Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no decree has been passed before the target date, that is, 31st July, 1986, and, therefore, no decree can be passed now is devoid of force because a decree in favour of the respondent had been passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra, on 17‑3‑1981, which was maintained by the High Court on 2‑4‑1988.
4. Thus finding no force in the petition the same is dismissed. A.A./M‑767/S Petition dismissed.