1989 PLP 463 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 463 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 463 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 463 (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 463 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL — Petitioner Versus KHURSHID HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Moulvi lhsanul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
- Moulvi lhsanul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1-4-1982 (Bahawalpur Bench) in R.SA No.248 of 1972).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Plea of waiver raised by vendee, rightly rejected by Courts below--No error noticeable on record Findings of fact against vendee on point of waiver being unexceptionable, and not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendee's petition for leave to appeal and it arises out of the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal in a pre‑emption matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issue relating to the bar of waiver against the respondent/pre‑emptor has not been correctly decided. In particular, he has criticised the appreciation and assessment of evidence with regard to existence authenticity of the so‑called Tehreer Tark‑i -Shufa relied upon from the petitioner's side. Ile also took us through the material on record regarding the plea of waiver. After hearing the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any error noticeable by this Court. The findings of fact against the petitioner being I E unexceptionable do not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. AA./M‑659/S Leave to appeal refused.