1986 PLP 1363 (SCMR)
Malik KATOO and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1363 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik KATOO and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1363 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1363 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1363 (SCMR) (Malik KATOO and 3 others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH BAKHSH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sayed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 1986.
- Sayed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-10-1978 passed in R.S.A. No. 773 of 1978). --Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15- Allegation of transaction being not a sale but exchange--Concurrent findings of Courts below--Petitioner unable to, point out any defect in impugned judgment by way of misreading of evidence or omission to consider any part thereof--Petitioner also was unable to show why Supreme Court should interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by Courts below--Leave to appeal refused. Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari P L D 1969 S C 617 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 7‑10‑1978, dismissing their R.S.A. in limine in a pre‑emption matter.
2. The petitioners brought in a suit against the respondents in, respect of the land measuring 91 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Mauza Kot Tahir, Tehsil Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the transaction was not a sale but exchange between the vendor and themselves. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was an exchange. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was dismissed and the finding of fact of the trial Court was upheld. The petitioners then filed an R.S.A. which also failed. The High Court dismissed it with the observation that a concurrent finding of fact could not be disturbed in a Second Appeal, if the same is based on evidence, however, meagre. For this view it relied on Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari P L D 1969 SC 617.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length. He has not been able to point out any defect in the impugned judgment by way of misreading of evidence or omission to consider any portion thereof. He has also not been able to show why this Court should interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by the learned Courts below. Leave is, therefore, refused. M.Y.H. Leave refused.