1998 PLP 2356 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Htzsan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2356 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Htzsan Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2356 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHEED ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th March, 1998.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 18‑7‑1996, of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Civil Revision No.361‑D of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre emption on basis of plaintiff's tenancy in land in question‑‑‑Suit was decreed, pre‑emption money was deposited and same was withdrawn by one of the defendants‑‑‑Defendant, thereafter, filed suit for permanent injunction praying that plaintiff be restrained from interfering in his possession of the suit land‑‑ Defendant's suit was dismissed by all the Courts below including the High Court ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Pre‑emption .money having been received by defendant and plaintiff's tenancy accepted, defendant was estopped from challenging pre emption decree‑‑‑Revenue Officer was duty bound to bring Revenue Record uptodate in conformity with binding adjudication of Civil Courts‑‑‑Concurrent findings recorded by Courts below did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 18-7-1996, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Civil Revision No. 361-D of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that one Abid Hussain Shah filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioner in respect of the suit land purchased by him alongwith his brother. Ibrahim, respondent No.1 herein, also filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of his tenancy in the land, which was decreed on 27-4-1990. The pre-emption money was deposited and the same was also withdrawn by the brother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that respondent No.1 be restrained from interfering in his possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 26-5-1995. The appeal filed by him also met the same fate. The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 18-7-1996. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 slept over the decree passed in his favour and filed the execution application on 5-11-1992, the same was, therefore, not liable to be enforced on account of laches. The contention is devoid of any force. The learned Judge in Chambers rightly held that the pre-emption money having been received by the petitioner and tenancy accepted, he was estopped to challenge the decree dated 27-4-1980. The learned Judge was also right in holding that the Revenue Officer was dutybound to bring the Rrevenue Record uptodate in conformity with the binding adjudication of Civil Court. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. A.A./A-53/S Leave refused.