1989 PLP 1642 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH Petitioner Versus HABIB KHAN and 11 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1642 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhamman Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH Petitioner Versus HABIB KHAN and 11 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1642 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1642 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhamman Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1642 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH Petitioner Versus HABIB KHAN and 11 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Muhammad Shah Badshah and S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Z. Mahfooz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from (lie judgment dated 10‑1‑1989 of the Peshawar High Court in Civil Revision No.466 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑No error of law or principle was discovered in the concurrent findings of fact of Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Datc of hearing: 15th May, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor/plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Civil Revision. The only question involved and raised now left to be resolved is; whether, the pre‑emption amount has correctly been fixed and decreed. Learned counsel has relied on an agreement to sell executed within a year of the transaction of sale which was subject‑matter of pre‑emption. The price of the land mentioned in the agreement was half of what was alleged to have been actually paid subsequently at the time of the sale transaction. Learned counsel for the caveator relying on the evidence in this behalf argued that this so‑called discrepancy/contradiction stood fully explained on record and having been accepted by the learned Courts below by concurrent finding of fact, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. After hearing both the learned counsel we have not been able to discover any error, in the concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below, of law or principle. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./M‑908/S Leave refused.