1992 PLP 447 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 447 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 447 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 447 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 447 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Petitioners.
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit for pre emption was dismissed on ground that transaction in question, was a gift and not a sale‑‑‑Appellate Court set aside this finding and remanded case for trial on merits through judgment dated 27‑3‑1986‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant's plea was that at no stage of proceedings in suit a decree having been passed in favour of plaintiff, no decree could be passed and therefore order of remand was liable to be set aside and decree of Trial Court for dismissal of suit be restored‑‑‑No such contention could be entertained in revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner, however, could raise such contention before Trial Court, which if raised would be diposed of by Trial Court in accordance with law‑‑‑No material irregularity and illegality having been shown to have been committed by lower Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, revision was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit for pre emption was dismissed on ground that transaction in question, was a gift and not a sale‑‑‑Appellate Court set aside this finding and remanded case for trial on merits through judgment dated 27‑3‑1986‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Defendant's plea was that at no stage of proceedings in suit a decree having been passed in favour of plaintiff, no decree could be passed and therefore order of remand was liable to be set aside and decree of Trial Court for dismissal of suit be restored‑‑‑No such contention could be entertained in revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioner, however, could raise such contention before Trial Court, which if raised would be diposed of by Trial Court in accordance with law‑‑‑No material irregularity and illegality having been shown to have been committed by lower Appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, revision was not competent. Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Petitioners. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 1989. This revision petition has arisen from suit for possession of land through pre‑emption. The respondents/plaintiffs claimed right of pre‑emption on the ground that they were owners of the estate. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court through judgment and decree by holding that the transaction in question was a gift and not a sale. This finding was set aside by the learned lower appellate Court on the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs which was disposed of through judgment dated 27‑3‑1986 and the case remanded for trial on merits. This revision petition is directed against the said judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners only argued that since at no stage of the proceedings in the suit decree was passed in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs as such no decree now can be passed, therefore, the impugned order of remand be set aside and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court for dismissal of suit be restored.
3. I am afraid no such contention can be entertained in these proceedings. After the remand the suit is pending before the learned trial Court. The petitioners may raise this argument before the learned trial Court which if raised shall be disposed of by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. This revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs as no material irregularity and illegality is shown to have been committed by the learned lower appellate Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. AA./M‑98/L Revision dismissed.