1988 PLP 1978 (SCMR)
GULAB SHAH — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1978 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GULAB SHAH — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1978 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1978 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1978 (SCMR) (GULAB SHAH — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record and Hakim Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988.
- Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record and Hakim Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.185 (3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913); S.15--Leave to appeal, grant of--Appreciation of evidence--Questions raised relating to findings of fact and/or believing or not believing respondent's witnesses--No error, legal or otherwise having been found in impugned judgment, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1988. JUDGMENT ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑For the reasons stated in the restoration application, C . P. 1090 of 1980 is restored. In support of the main petition which has been filed by the vendee in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, learned counsel initially raised two points. They are: (1) that the respondent's suit should have been dismissed on ground of limitation connected with the ‑question of deficiency in court‑fee; and (2) that the respondent had failed to establish his superior right of pre‑emption. During the arguments the learned counsel gave up the first point on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C .289. Regarding the second point, the learned counsel stated that after rejecting the documentary evidence of both the sides, the learned trial Court should not have believed the oral evidence produced by the respondent. The argument raised by the learned counsel relates to findings of fact and/or believing or not believing the respondent's witnesses. After hearing him on this point, we have not been able to find any error legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment. The petition accordingly is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M . I . / G‑131/ S Petition dismissed.