1989 PLP 1283 (SCMR)
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1283 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Present: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1283 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1283 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1283 (SCMR) (Present: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court and SAbul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑6‑88 in C.R. No. 1029‑D/84). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1373); Art, 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Superior right qua petitioner‑‑Judgment of Appellate Court was well reasoned and Court had taken care of legal as well as factual aspects‑‑Petitioner failed even before Supreme Court to establish his superior right‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Younas son of Juma, caste Syed, resident of Kanganpur District Kasur seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑6‑1988. Muhammad Yasin Khan respondent filed a civil suit for possession through pre‑emption against Muhammad Younas. The suit of the respondent was decreed on the ground that he had a superior right to purchase the land in dispute. Muhammad Younas filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. That was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur on 2‑6‑
84. Revision against that order also failed. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal submitted that the respondent failed to establish superior right qua the petitioner. It was next contended that the decision of this Court referred to in the judgment of the High Court was not applicable to this case. Both these contentions have no force. The judgment of the Additional district Judge is well reasoned. He has taken care of the legal as well as the factual aspect. Even before us the learned counsel was unable to establish superior right of the petitioner. Dismissed. M.B.A./M‑869/S Petition dismissed.