1989 PLP 540 (SCMR)
SALEHON MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 540 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SALEHON MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 540 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 540 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 540 (SCMR) (SALEHON MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme. Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th May, 1988.
- Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme. Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in C.R. No.422/D of 1984 and C.R. No.423/D of 1984, dated 13-3-1984).
Art.185(3)--Two connected matters pending before Trial Court--Plea raised that evidence recorded in one case was copied in the other and further that judgment was written in one case but was copied in the other by filling in certain blanks--Held, even if such plea be accepted on facts, petitioners in subsequent suit should have objected to the mode of recording of evidence by Trial Court which they failed to do--Questions involved being the same, ever. if some of the parts of judgment in the case were reproduced in subsequent suit, leave to appeal could not be granted on such technicality.
Art.185(3)--Plea that suits should have been dismissed on ground of estoppel- Material on ,record and concurrent findings of Courts below showed that facts of present case were distinguishable from fact of Naseer Ahmad's case reported in P L D 1984 S C 403--Question of estoppel, held did not require to be re examined--Leave to appeal was declined in circumstances. Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad P L D 1984 S C 403 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by vendees. They are directed against the dismissal of their Civil Revisions. Learned counsel has raised two‑fold contentions; one, technical and procedural; and the other, on merits regarding bar of estoppel against the respondent/pre‑emptor. Regarding the first contention, the learned counsel stated that in reality evidence was recorded in one of‑these two connected matters but was copied in ‑the other, and further, that the judgment was written in one but was copied in the other, by filling in certain blanks. Even if the first point be accepted as based on facts, the petitioners vendees in the subsequent suit should have objected to the mode of recording of evidence by the trial Court. There is no proof that he did so. With regard to the second point, the questions involved being the same, even if some of the parts of the judgment in one case are reproduced in subsequent case, we would not grant leave to appeal on this technicality either. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (P L D 1984 S C 403) that the suits should have been dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Prima facie, there is some strength in this argument of the learned counsel. However, we on careful scrutiny of the material before us and the learned Courts below which gave concurrent findings against the petitioners, are satisfied that the facts in this matter are distinguishable. The question of estoppel also does not, therefore, need re‑examination. Leave to appeal in both the petitions, is thus refused. AA./S‑225/S Leave to appeal refused.