1989SCMR89 (PLP)
DOST MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MOMAND and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR89 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MOMAND and another Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR89 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR89 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR89 (PLP) (DOST MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MOMAND and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- M.S.M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal. They have lost throughout. Learned counsel has contended that the respondents' suit should have been dismissed as time‑barred, on account of prior physical possession obtained by the vendees' side. He, however, admitted that this question of fact was raised for the first time in the High Court (when an earlier Regular First Appeal had been filed which was, later decided by the District Court as first appeal). He further stated that the point was raised through an application for amendment of the written statement which was ultimately dismissed by the District Court while dismissing the first appeal. When pointed out to the learned counsel that the first appeal Court or for that matter, the High Court, is not obliged to examine the question of limitation which was not raised before the trial Court as held by this Court in Muhammad Ishaq v. Shah Muhammad (1985 S C M R 799), and Allah Yar Khan v. Mst. Sardar Bibni (1986 S C M R 1957) he did not press the petition any further. The same is accordingly dismissed. M.I./D‑29/S Leave refused.