989 PLP R1150 (SCMR)
Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 989 PLP R1150 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pre‑emption‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 989 PLP R1150 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pre‑emption‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 989 PLP R1150 (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: 989 PLP R1150 (SCMR) (Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.449 of 1983).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.449 of 1983).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No.299 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.299 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.306 of 1984).
- Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.485 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.485 of 1984).
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Vendees in separate pre‑emption cases, called in question dismissal of their civil re‑visions/writ petitions‑‑One ground common to all of them related to the payment of deficient court‑fee, which stood concluded by the judgment of Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case reported as P L D 1984 S C 289 and was against the vendees/petitioners‑ Pleas intended to be raised by the petitioners relating to improvements and the question that suit land was not the subject‑matter of pre‑emption, stood concluded by findings of fact against vendees‑‑No justification had been made out factual or otherwise to interfere with such findings of fact‑‑Leave refused. P L D 1984 S C 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions by vendees in separate pre‑emption cases have called in question the dismissal of their civil revisions/writ petitions. One ground common to all of them urged by the learned counsel relates .to the payment of deficient court‑fee. It now stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 which goes against the petitioners. In one of these cases C.P.299/84 the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of filing of the petition, the intention was to take up another ground also, namely, one relating to improvements. He further stated that it stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner (in that case), therefore, he would not be able to press the same at this stage. Similarly in the other petition (C.P.485/84) the learned counsel wanted to raise the question that the suit land was not the subject‑matter of pre‑emption.. On this point also the findings of fact are against the vendees/petitioners and no justification has been made out factual or otherwise to interfere with it. In view of what has been stated above, all these petitions are dismissed. A.A./A‑444/S Petitions dismissed.