1989 PLP 784 (SCMR)
ANWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus BAKHSHEESH AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 784 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | : Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ANWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus BAKHSHEESH AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 784 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 784 (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 784 (SCMR) (ANWAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus BAKHSHEESH AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents)
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21st September, 1988 in R.S.A. No.5 of 1987).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Plea of waiver though raised in pleadings was not pressed before Trial Court as recorded in that Court's judgment--No such ground was taken or argued before lower Appellate Courts--Such plea having not been pressed before Trial Court, could not be allowed to be pressed either before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order, dated 21st September, 1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.S.A. of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the respondents Filed a suit for possession of the disputed land through pre‑emption on the ground that they were the owners of land in the estate where the land in dispute sought to be pre‑empted was situate. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal of the petitioners against the Judgment and decree of the: trial Court was dismissed by the District Judge, Toba Tek Singh. Thereafter their R.S.A. was also unsuccessful as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the respondents had waived the right of pre‑emption and that issue to that effect, although framed was not correctly decided by the Courts below and evidence on the said issue produced by the petitioners was not properly appreciated. We note that although issue No.3 regarding waiver of right of pre‑emption by the respondents was framed but to the judgment of the trial Court under the said issue it is stated as follows: "This issue has been conceded by the learned counsel for the defendants g vidc his statement got recorded on 17th July, 1983." In the High Court order it is mentioned by the learned Judge that even before the lower appellate Court this matter was not argued. Furthermore even in the R.S.A. no ground had been taken that the observation of the trial Court to the effect that the said issue was not pressed was wrong or that it had been duly pressed and argued. It is evident that learned counsel before us is raising issue A No.3 regarding waiver of the right of pre‑emption by the respondents which was certainly not pressed before the trial Court as correctly observed in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court. Since this is the position no ground is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑407/S Petition dismissed.