1991 PLP 1691 (SCMR)
MIAN MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Appellants Versus FALAK SHER and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1691 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MIAN MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Appellants Versus FALAK SHER and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1691 (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 1691 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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: 1991 PLP 1691 (SCMR) (MIAN MUHAMMAD and 3 others — Appellants Versus FALAK SHER and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Ex-Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1991.
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Ex‑Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 19-6-1989 passed in Civil Revision No.457-D of 1988).
S.15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Setting aside of pre emption decree by High Court
Appeal before Supreme Court was shown to be barred by thirty-two days
Appellants' counsel conceded that in view of decisions of Supreme Court in cases reported as P L D 1990 S C 865 and P L D 1990 S C 899 followed by P L D 1990 S C 1060, he had no arguments to advance but sought an observation by Court that he would be free to avail of S.36, Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance (IX of 1991) for getting redress as admissible according to law
Appeal being time-barred and as per decisions referred to, same was dismissed with observation that appellants could avail of any other remedy that law made available to them. Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1-R of 1989 in Shariat Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1979 and others P L D.1990 S C 865; Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others P L D 1990 S C 899 and Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others P L D 1990 S C 1060 rel. Baldeo Misir v. Ramlagan Shukul A I R 1924 All. 82 ref. JUDGMENT SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The plaintiffs have preferred a direct appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-6-1989 whereby a pre emption decree passed in their favour was set aside and their suit was dismissed.
2. This appeal is shown to be barred by 32 days. Apart from it, the learned counsel for the appellants Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf has admitted that in view of the decisions subsequently given by this Court in Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1-R of 1989 in Shariat Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1979 etc. P L D 1990 SC 865 followed by Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others P L D 1990 S C 899 and Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others P L D 1990 S C 1060, he has no arguments to advance except to draw the attention of the Court to an earlier decision on the same subject by a learned Judge in Baldeo Misir v. Ramalagan Shukul (AIR 1924 Allahabad 82) in support of his point of view. He further wanted that it should be made clear that he would be free to avail of section 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance No.IX of 1991) for getting redress as may be admissible according to the law.
3. In view of our decisions referred to and the appeal being time-barred, we dismiss it and observe that certainly the appellants can avail of any other remedy that law makes available to them. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. AA./M-1507/S Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The plaintiffs have preferred a direct appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑6‑1989 whereby a pre emption decree passed in their favour was set aside and their suit was dismissed.
2. This appeal is shown to be barred by 32 days. Apart from it, the learned counsel for the appellants Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf has admitted that in view of the decisions subsequently given by this Court in Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1‑R of 1989 in Shariat Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1979 etc. P L D 1990 SC 865 followed by Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others P L D 1990 S C 899 and Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others P L D 1990 S C 1060, he has no arguments to advance except to draw the attention of the Court to an earlier decision on the same subject by a learned Judge in Baldeo Misir v. Ramalagan Shukul (AIR 1924 Allahabad 82) in support of his point of view. He further wanted that it should be made clear that he would be free to avail of section 36 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance No.IX of 1991) for getting redress as may be admissible according to the law.
3. In view of our decisions referred to and the appeal being time‑barred, we dismiss it and observe that certainly the appellants can avail of any other remedy that law makes available to them. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. AA./M‑1507/S Appeal dismissed.