1988 PLP 1232 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM SAKINA and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1232 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM SAKINA and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1232 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1232 (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: 1988 PLP 1232 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. GHULAM SAKINA and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Taj Muhammad Khan Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 25‑1‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Civil Revision No.47 of 1987). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.115 and C.IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Findings of fact interference with‑ Petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte decree, failed‑‑Order affirmed in appeal and revision‑‑Plea that petitioner having shown sufficient cause for his absence before Trial Court, his revision should have been accepted, repelled‑‑Question of sufficient cause being concluded by findings of fact against petitioner, leave to appeal refused. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Fresh plea‑‑Plea not having been pressed during arguments before High Court, not entertained at leave to appeal stage‑‑Petition dismissed. (c) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art .185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑Sale consideration‑‑Fixation of‑‑Suit for pre‑emption decreed ex parte‑ Petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte decree failed‑‑Belated appeal and revision met with same fate‑‑Plea that Trial Court had fixed sale consideration much below what was shown in registered deed of transfer and thus had contravened the rule laid down by Supreme Court, not entertained because pre‑emption decree passed in favour of respondents was not challenged by way of appeal at proper time‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Malik Hussain and others v. Lala Ram Chand and others PLD 1970 S C 299 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from Judgment dated 25‑1‑1987 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Civil Revision, arising out of a pre‑emption matter, was dismissed.
2. The respondents' suit for pre‑emption was decreed against the petitioner, ex parte. An application filed for setting aside the ex parte order by the petitioner was dismissed. His appeal against the dismissal of that application was also dismissed by the District Court. His Revision in the High Court having met the same fate, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner having shown sufficient cause for his absence, before the trial Court, his revision should have been accepted by the High Court. Secondly that one of the pleas in support of the sufficient cause taken in the revision petition was not examined by the High Court in the impugned Judgment. Thirdly, the learned counsel has contended, that although the registered deed of transfer in favour of the petitioner showed a sale consideration of Rs.20,000, the trial Court fixed it at about 6,
000. This, according to him, was in‑contravention of the rule laid down by this Court in Malik Hussain and others v . Lala Ram Chand and others P L D 1970 S C 299.
4. None of the contentions of the learned counsel has any force. The question of sufficient cause stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner. His explanation, for absence, having been examined by us also, is untenable. The alternative plea mentioned by, the learned counsel was not pressed during the arguments before the High Court, therefore, we have declined to entertain it now.
5. The proceedings out of which this petition for leave to appeal has arisen, were started by the petitioner by filing an appeal against the rejection of his' application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. This appeal was filed by him after a long time when his application was dismissed and the ex parte decree had achieved finality. He had not independently challenged that decree within time. It has been so stated by the learned counsel. That being so, the decree itself is not for examination before us in the present leave to appeal petition. Even if the ground could be taken with regard to the amount of pre‑emption money, it cannot now be entertained as pre‑emption decree passed in favour of the respondents was not challenged by way of an appeal at proper time. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. M.I. /M‑51/S Petition dismissed.