2014 PLP 667 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 667 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 667 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 667 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 667 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AMIN — Appellant Versus ZULFIQAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mir Afzal Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Mirza Ejaz Baig, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 2014.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-4-2011 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Civil Revision No.324-D of 2000.)
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(2)
Mentioning of time and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibit
Contention of the appellant/pre-emptor was that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad reported as PLD 2007 SC 302 with regards to particulars of Talb-e-Muwathibat vis-a-vis time and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibit was per incuriam
Held, argument of pre-emptor/appellant was not persuasive, and appeal was therefore without merit
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others PLD 2007 SC 302 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
This appeal, with the leave of the Court, was filed by the appellant/pre-emptor, who has failed before the learned trial Court on non-proving Talb-i-Muwathibat, but when such judgment and decree was assailed by the appellant before the learned Appellate Court the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 22-4-2000. We have questioned the learned counsel for the appellant, if as per the law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) the particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat vis-a-vis time and place are mentioned in the plaint, to which he has attacked on the ground that the said judgment is per incuriam. We are not persuaded to hold the same. This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. KMZ/M-8/SC Appeal dismissed.