1989 PLP 503 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Raja MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 503 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Raja MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 503 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 503 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 503 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ KHAN — Petitioner Versus Raja MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1988.
- Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 3-10-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in R.S.A. No.609 of 1976),
S.15--Pre-emption suit--Waiver, plea of--Pre-emptor in his evidence had categorically denied that land was offered to him before its purchase by vendee- Evidence led by vendee in support of his plea of waiver was extremely unsatisfactory--Both the High Court and First Appellate Court, held, were justified in rejecting the same.
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Plea about commercial nature of land not raised before Trial Court and for that reason it could not be put to trial--Such plea, therefore, could not be advanced at appellate stage for the first time--Petition being without merit, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit filed by the respondent. It was dismissed by the trial Court with the finding that he had waived his right. In the first appeal the District Judge reversed this finding and decreed the suit. In second appeal by the petitioner the High Court maintained the decree of the first appellate Court. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition the learned counsel has again pressed the plea of waiver. He points out that while appearing as his own witness at the trial the petitioner had stated that the respondent had assured him that he would not exercise his right of pre‑emption. The respondent did not care to challenge his assertion in this regard. In the circumstances, the Courts below should have accepted his assertion.
3. After going through the evidence of the parties we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel. It is to be noticed that when the respondent appeared in the witness‑box he categorically denied that the land was offered to him before its purchase by the petitioner. Apart from that, the evidence led by the petitioner in support of his plea is extremely unsatisfactory. Consequently, both the High Court and the District Judge were justified in rejecting it.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that the property in dispute was of commercial nature and as such it could not be a proper subject for the exercise of the right of pre‑emption. This contention is again without merit. It was not raised before the trial Court and for that reason it was not put to trial. It could not, therefore, be advanced at the appellate stage for the first time.
5. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. AA./A‑388/S Petition dismissed.