1987 PLP 310 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 310 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 310 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 310 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 310 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 1‑11‑1986 in Civil Revision No. 2084‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑ Concurrent findings‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by three Courts below which were essentially based on appreciation of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a suit for pre‑emption and the only question for consideration is whether respondent No.1, the pre‑emptor, was estoppel from bringing the suit. In support of the plea of estoppel the petitioners who were the vendees averred that the property in dispute was first offered to respondent No.1 but he declined to purchase it. This averment was sought to be supported by oral testimony, alone which was provided by Mst. Aamna Bibi, her husband Chiragh Din and the petitioner. It may be mentioned that Mst. Aamna Bibi was the vendor. She was a sister of respondent No.1. She admitted at the trial that her relations with respondent No.1 were strained. When respondent No.1 appeared in the witness‑box he was not questioned about the offer allegedly made to him to purchase the land. The learned trial Court, the Additional District Judge and the High Court did not regard the oral testimony as sufficient to establish the plea of estoppels. We see no reason to interfere in the concurrent finding recorded by these Courts which finding was essentially based on appreciation of evidence. The prayer for leave to appeal is refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.