1985 PLP (2) (SCMR)
ILAM DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ILAM DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (2) (SCMR) (ILAM DIN and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sher Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1985.
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sher Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-6-1978, passed in R.S.A. No. 310 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 15--Superior right of Pre-emption
Concurrent findings of facts by lower Courts- Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court where petitioner failed to show that High Court either misread or ignored any material portion of evidence on record with respect to issue in question.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Ilam Din and Mst. Meraj Begum seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11‑6‑1978, dismissing their R.S.A. (No.310 of 1978) in a pre‑emption case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have superior right of pre‑emption as compared to the respondents and that the learned Courts below have erred in giving finding to the contrary. We, however, notice that the learned High Court had dismissed petitioners' R.S.A. on the ground that the matter stood concluded by the finding of fact. The petitioners' counsel has not been able to show that the learned High Court has either misread or ignored any material portion of the evidence on the record with respect to the issue in question. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A. A. Leave refused.