1988 PLP 1579 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1579 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1579 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1579 (SCMR)?
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: 1988 PLP 1579 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAITOON and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner (in C.P.S.L.A. No.892/85).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P.S.L.A. No.892/85).
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P.S.L.A. No.1032/85).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P.S.L.A. No.1032/85).
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P.S.L.A. No.925/85).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P.S.L.A. No. 925/85).
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps.S.L.A. Nos.888 and 889/85).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.Ps.S.L.A.Nos.888 and 889/85).
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.S.L.A. No.410/85).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P.S.L.A. No.410/85).
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.S.L.A. No.1032/85).
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.S.L.A. No.925/85).
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps.S.L.A. Nos.888 and 889/85).
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P.S.L.A. No.410/85).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4 & 15--Petition far leave to appeal--Pre-emption suit--No decree stated to have been passed at any stage by any Court in favour of petitioners/ pre-emptors before 31-7-1986--Decree, held, could not be passed in their favour in view of Supreme Court decision reported as P L D 1988 SC
287. Sardar Ali's case P L D 1988 S C 287 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by pre‑emptors in these petitions in separate cases. Learned counsel who have appeared before us in support of these petitions have stated that no decree was passed at any stage by any Court in favour of any of the petitioners/ pre‑emptors, before the 31st of July, 1986. That being so, no decree can be passed in favour of any of them as held by this Court in case of Sardar Ali PLD 1988 S C
287. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petitions are dismissed. It needs to be observed that in C.P. 892/1985 which prima facie is barred by 43 days, none appeared to prosecute the petition. However, from the record it appears that no decree has so far been passed in favour of the pre‑emptor/ petitioner therein. We have accordingly dismissed this petition also. However, if it is discovered that a decree in petitioners' favour was passed at any stage before 31‑7‑1986, a review petition might then be filed. The petitioner shall be informed about this order. Before closing, it needs to be noted that in C.P. 1032/1985, learned counsel stated that no decree was passed in favour of the petitioners/ pre‑emptors in so far as the vendees other than those specified in the petition, are concerned, before 31‑7‑1986, In this case also after hearing the learned counsel, this petition, in the circumstances thereof, would fall in the category of pre‑emptors' petitions, which are being disposed of by this order. M.Y.H./A‑262/S Leave refused.