1988 PLP 1101 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1101 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aalarn Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1101 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1101 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aalarn Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1101 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rafiq Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑12‑1985, in R.S.A.No.892 of 1978). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Grant of‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Question arising whether a transaction was a sale or an exchange‑‑Supreme Court declined to reopen the matter which had been finally decided by concurrent finding of fact recorded by Court below.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑12‑1985 dismissing his R.S.A. arising out of suit for pre‑emption.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main question involved in this case is whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. Three Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the transaction was a sale. The learned High Court dismissed the R.S.A. mainly on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner:‑ "..has not been able to point out any material evidence which might have been misconstrued or omitted from consideration. Therefore, there is no valid reason for this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding on a question which is essential one of fact.."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert this observation and this Court is not inclined to reopen the matter which has been finally decided by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.I./G‑79/S Petition dismissed.