1988 PLP 1219 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus FIAZ MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1219 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and David Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus FIAZ MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1219 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1219 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and David Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1219 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus FIAZ MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for pre emption‑‑Decree ~ in favour of respondents affirmed in revision‑ Petitioners/ vendees agitating question of improvements made by them‑ High Court holding that alleged improvements were made before sale of suit land and petitioners were not entitled to any compensation therefor‑‑No point having been urged against said reasoning, petitions held were devoid of any force and dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal in these two petitions has been sought by vendees in pre‑emption matters against judgment dated 27‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby their Civil Revisions were dismissed.
2. The respondent's side has succeeded in obtaining pre‑emption decrees. The only question agitated by the learned counsel is that of improvements made by the petitioners/ vendees. The same having been agitated before the High Court, it was held that the alleged improvements were made before the sale of the suit land. That being so, it was held that the petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation for such improvements. The learned counsel has not been able to urge any point against this reasoning. That being so, there is no force in these petitions and the same are dismissed. M.I./M‑438/S Petitions dismissed.