1989 PLP 2005 (SCMR)
Mst. BAKHSHI ‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2005 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. BAKHSHI ‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2005 (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 1989 PLP 2005 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2005 (SCMR) (Mst. BAKHSHI ‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- CA.Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing, 4th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment dated 14‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in R.S.A.No.473 of 1975). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)‑‑Additional evidence admitted by High Court in second appeal‑‑Effect‑‑Pre‑emption suit decreed by Trial Court and such decree upheld in First and Second Appeal‑‑Leave to appeal was sought on the ground that High Court could not have admitted additional evidence when hearing and disposing of second appeal, and further, that even on basis of further evidence judgments of lower Courts could not have been upheld by the High Court as High Court had itself come to the conclusion that there was misreading of evidence by the lower Courts‑‑Held: in addition to the material brought on record in the evidence admitted in the High Court, there was enough material for High Court to affirm and uphold concurrent findings of fact by two Courts below‑‑Said material was noticed by the High Court m affirming findings by the Courts below No justification had thus been made out for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendor in case of pre‑emption against judgment dated 14‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal, was dismissed.
2. In a pre‑emption suit, the petitioner/vendor and the respondent/vendee took up the position that no sale had taken place, therefore, the pre‑emption decree could not be passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The plea was rejected and the pre‑emption suit was decreed. The judgment of the trial Court was upheld in 1st Appeal. In Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, the two judgments of the lower Courts were upheld. The learned Single Judge in the High Court, however, also admitted additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking leave to appeal on behalf of the vendor, has contended that the learned Single Judge could not have admitted additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 when hearing and disposing of a Regular Second Civil Appeal; and further, that even on the basis of the additional evidence the judgments of the learned lower Courts (notwithstanding the fact that they contained concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner) could not have been upheld by the High Court; because, as further contended by the learned counsel, the High Court itself came to the conclusion that there was mis‑reading of the evidence by the learned lower Courts.
4. We, after hearing the learned counsel and perusal of the impugned judgment, are of the view that in addition to the material brought on record in the evidence admitted in the High Court, there was enough material for High Court to affirm and uphold the concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below. That material was noticed by the High Court against the petitioner in affirming the findings by the learned Courts below.
5. In that view of the matter, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal in this case. The question of law raised by the learned counsel, if not already resolved, can be examined in some other proper case. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. A.A./B‑114/S Petition dismissed