1991 PLP 1659 (SCMR)
Mst. DARVESHAN JAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1659 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Mst. DARVESHAN JAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1659 (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 1991 PLP 1659 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1659 (SCMR) (Mst. DARVESHAN JAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1990.
- Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 7-11-1988, in R.S.A. No.527 of 1978).
Ss. 4, 15 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan E1973), Art. 185(3)
Superior right of pre-emption
Leave to appeal was granted to consider question whether on facts and material on record, respondent, could be held as having superior right of pre emption and whether he was entitled to a decree for possession of land in dispute.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTUM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition filed by Mst. Darveshan Jan petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 7th November, 1988.
2. Arguments heard.
3. Leave is granted to consider the question whether, on the facts and the material on record, Sardar Hussain, respondent No.2, could be held as having superior right of pre‑emption and whether he was entitled to a decree for possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record. Parties are at liberty to file further documents which they consider necessary for the full and final disposal of the appeal. H.B.T./D‑73/S Leave granted.