1988 PLP 1659 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1659 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1659 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1659 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1659 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbul A.Qadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners brought a suit for pre‑emption. It was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the vendees it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. In second appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. The petitioners based their claim to the superior right on the assertion that they were co‑sharers in the khata in which the land in dispute was situate. However, at the trial they were unable to substantiate their assertion. They then took the plea that their claim to superior right should be upheld on the ground that they were owners in the estate while the respondents‑vendees were strangers therein. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the plea on the ground that this was not the basis on which they had come to the Court. The High Court upheld the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that if their plain was properly construed, it would have become clear that they had claimed the superior right on the basis of ownership in the estate also. After perusing the plaint we are unable to accept this contention. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./B‑62/S Petition dismissed.