1994 PLP 1877 (SCMR)
MUMTAZ IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASRIN MEHMOODA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1877 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Sood Jan, Actg. CJ. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | MUMTAZ IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASRIN MEHMOODA‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1877 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1877 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Sood Jan, Actg. CJ. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1877 (SCMR) (MUMTAZ IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NASRIN MEHMOODA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1994.
- Learned counsel for petitioners contended that learned Courts below did not advert to the question that Abdul Rehman and some other petitioners were tenants on the land m dispute at the relevant time and had thus superior right of pre‑emption than respondent The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the compensation awarded to the petitioners was far less than the amount incurred for the actual improvements made in the land.
- After hearing learned counsel for petitioners we are unable to hold that the findings of the learned Single Judge in the High Court are without substance. In the circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. This petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 11‑7‑1993, in R.SA.12/1993). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution,of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit for pre emption was decreed by al] the Courts below including the High Court‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Defendants' plea that High Court did not advert to the question of pre‑emptory right of tenancy of defendants was of no avail for only issue agitated in appeal before High Court was about the quantum of compensation awarded to defendants for the improvements made by them in property in question ‑‑‑Pre‑emptory right of tenancy was not pleaded in written statement, therefore, High Court was justified in not taking notice of same‑‑‑Local Commissioner appointed with the consent pf parties determined cost of improvements which far exceeded the claim of defendants‑‑‑Judgment of High Court being correct, no interference was warranted therein‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1994. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal from judgment dated 11‑7‑.1993, passed by learned Judge in the Lahore High Court, dismissing R.SA. No.12/1993, filed by the petitioners, The respondent instituted suit on 21‑12‑1980, pre‑empting the sale of the land in dispute dated 22‑12‑1979, the suit was contested by the petitioners but was decreed on 21‑12‑1980, by the learned Civil Judge, Vehari. The judgment and decree dated 21‑12‑1980, of the Civil Court was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Vehari, as well as by the High Court in revision. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that learned Courts below did not advert to the question that Abdul Rehman and some other petitioners were tenants on the land m dispute at the relevant time and had thus superior right of pre‑emption than respondent The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the compensation awarded to the petitioners was far less than the amount incurred for the actual improvements made in the land. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is without substance because the only issue agitated in appeal before the High Court was about the quantum of compensation awarded to petitioners for the improvements made by them in the suit land. The preemptory right of tenancy was not pleaded in the written statement; therefore, the High Court was justified in not taking notice of the same. As far as the next contention is concerned, the High Court in para. 7 of the impugned judgment held that the dispute between the parties before the High Court stood confined only to issue No.8 embodying the question of determining the cost of improvements and as per report of the Local Commissioner appointed with the consent of the parties, was Rs.3,36,745 which exceeded the claim of the petitioners viz. Rs.2,00,000 as stated by Nazir Hussain one of the petitioners when appeared before the trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners we are unable to hold that the findings of the learned Single Judge in the High Court are without substance. In the circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. This petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed. A. A. /M-2056/S Leave refused.