1989SCMR57 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others — Petitioners Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR57 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others — Petitioners Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR57 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR57 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR57 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ and others — Petitioners Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents
Judgment & Decree
Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 7th June 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. Learned counsel has contended that the suit land was in fact state land and was not subject to pre‑emption. This very point was urged before the High Court in support of this revision petition, but the petitioners did not succeed because it had not been taken before the lower Court. The argument of the learned counsel is that although the plea could be established on the basis of the record available before lower Courts, the plea could not be taken due to inadvertence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of the plea, taken at a belated stage. Refusal by the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in these circumstances is unexceptionable. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K./M‑625/S Leave refused.