1969 PLP 112 (SCMR)
MUHA\IMAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER Petitioners Versus CAPTAIN Main ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 112 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHA\IMAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER Petitioners Versus CAPTAIN Main ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 112 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Sajjad Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 112 (SCMR) (MUHA\IMAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER Petitioners Versus CAPTAIN Main ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 26th June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd November 1967, in S. A. O. No. 239/1965).
Art. 58(3)‑Remedy inform of Letters Patent Appeal available to petitioner yet petitioner moving Supreme Court directly under Art. 58 (3)‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, held, premature and ordered in circumstance to be returned to petitioner. Respondent no. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Senior Attorney for Petitioners. Respondent no. 1 in person. Nemo for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing : 26th June 1968. SAJJAD AHMAD J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Bench, passed in Second Appeal in a pre‑emption case in respect of a sale of agricultural land which was allotted and confirmed in favour of the vendor by the Settlement authorities. The learned Single Judge has held that the sale in question was not pre‑emptible in view of the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore in Civil Revision No. 191 of 1958 (Babu Ali Muhammad v. Mahmud- ul‑Hassan). It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a Full Bench Judgment of the Peshawar Bench of the same Court reported as Taza Gul v. Said Ghulam (P L D 1967 Pesh. 157), has laid down a contrary rule. However, this petition must fail on the short ground that it has not been brought against the final judgment of the High. Court. The petitioner should have moved the learned Single Judge for a certificate for a Letters Patent Appeal and in case the certificate is granted to pursue his remedy, by a Letters Patent Appeal. Of course, the decision of the learned Single Judge becomes final as far as the High Court is concerned, in case the certificate is not issued. Since the petition has been filed prematurely it should be returned to the petitioner. Petition returned to petitioner.