1988 PLP 1377 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus INAYAT MUHAMMAD and others Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1377 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Snood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus INAYAT MUHAMMAD and others Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1377 (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 1988 PLP 1377 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Snood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1377 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD Petitioner Versus INAYAT MUHAMMAD and others Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zahid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30-10-1983 in R.S. A. No.96 of 1971). --S.21--Pre-emption suit--Estoppel--Bar of--Vendee lost throughout in all the Courts below--Opportunity of being heard--Vendee had led no evidence regarding bar of estoppel against respondent but asserting that he could show from certain admissions made from the respondent's side during the evidence that his (pre-emptor's) claim to pre-emption should have been denied on the ground of estoppel--No noticeable error having been found, Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendee's petition arising out of a pre‑emption matter. The dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court has been challenged. He has lost throughout in all the Courts below. The question raised now is regarding bar of estoppel against the respondents‑pre emptors' side. The only grievance made by the learned counsel is that the District Court did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner‑vendee on the question of estoppel. When questioned as to whether the petitioner had led any evidence on that behalf, answered in the negative and asserted that the petitioner could show from the certain admissions made from the respondent's side during the evidence that his claim to pre‑emption should have been denied on the ground of estoppel. We after hearing the learned counsel on this subsidiary question also have not been able to find any error noticeable by this Court in the impugned judgment. That being so, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./B‑57/S Petition dismissed.