1991 PLP 1878 (SCMR)
NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus Syed ASHFAQ ALI SHAH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1878 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleern, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus Syed ASHFAQ ALI SHAH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1878 (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 1878 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleern, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Saad Saood Jan 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 1878 (SCMR) (NIZAM DIN — Petitioner Versus Syed ASHFAQ ALI SHAH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- CA. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Zaki-ud-Din Paul, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1989.
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Paul, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4-7-1988, passed in Regular First Appeal No.38 of 1988).
S. 16
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Courts below concurrently non-suited petitioner, finding that respondents' right of pre-emption in respect of property in dispute on basis of contiguity was superior qua petitioner being owners of dominant property and that windows of property of respondents opened towards suit property
No fault with concurrent findings of Courts below having been found, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J: ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑7‑1988.
2. The contest is between the two rival pre‑emptors. The suit of respondents 2 and 3 has been decreed throughout for having a superior right of pre‑emption qua the petitioner being the owners of dominant property. The above findings have now been challenged through the present petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have not been able to find any fault with the findings arrived at by the Courts below. In the plaint submitted by the petitioner he claimed superior right of pre‑emption on the basis of contiguity only. This was refuted by the respondents, the rival pre‑emptors. As against this, the respondents' suit was based on contiguity and also that the windows of their property opened towards the suit property; that they had been enjoying this right of easement for over seven decades and thus have a superior right of pre‑emption. The fact that the windows of the house of the respondents opened towards the suit property has not at all been specifically denied in the written statement submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has admitted that the windows of the house of the respondents do open towards the suit property. The case of the respondents is thus fully covered under the provision of section 16 clause fifthly of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act and, therefore, the Courts below were justified in non‑suiting the petitioner.
4. Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./N‑232/S Petition dismissed.