1986 PLP 1176 (SCMR)
GHULAM NABI and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SADIQAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1176 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SADIQAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1176 (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 1176 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1176 (SCMR) (GHULAM NABI and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SADIQAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Talib H. Rizavi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Talib H. Rizavi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18-5-1982 of the Lahore Court Lahore in Civil Revision No. 706/D of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21--Pre-emption-Suit for--Leave to appeal--Grant of--Suit decreed by trial Court Decision upheld in first and second Appeals--Petition for leave to appeal No question of law involved--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAIN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 583 of 1982 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 379 of 1983 in Civil Petition No. 5 83 of 1982. The petition arises in a pre‑emption matter. The respondent had pre‑empted a sale made in favour of the petitioners claiming that she had superior right of ore‑emption. The suit was decreed and the judgment of the trial Court was upheld, on appeal, by the learned District Judge and, on second appeal, by the High Court. No question of law arises in this matter and this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Similarly, the application for taking contempt proceedings against the petitioner (being urged through Civil miscellaneous Petition No. 379 of 1983 in Civil Petition No. 583 of 1982) also does not call for any action. Both the petitions for leave and the application praying for taking contempt of Court proceedings are, accordingly, dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.