1985 PLP 127 (SCMR)
GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 127 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art.185(3)--Pre-emption--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether first appellate Court had not misread evidence which High Court failed to examine. --Pre-emption. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art.185(3)--Pre-emption--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether first appellate Court had not misread evidence which High Court failed to examine. --Pre-emption. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 127 (SCMR) (GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-3-1977, passed in Civil Revision Nay 235/77)
Art.185(3)--Pre-emption--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether first appellate Court had not misread evidence which High Court failed to examine. --[Pre-emption].
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This is the vendees' petition in a pre-emption matter.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that one Allah Ditta sold land in question to Gul Muhammad etc. vendees (petitioners herein). But before the last day of the limitation Muhammad Ramzan (respondent herein) who is the son of Allah Ditta vendor, filed a suit to pre-empt the sale.
3. The vendees contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground of waiver by Muhammad Ramzan (respondent) of his right to pre-empt the land. The trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit. The pre-emptor filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who accepted the same and decreed the suit. The petitioners then went up to the High Court in revision which upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge. Hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the vendees (petitioners) had produced witnesses who deposed about the circum stances which led to the inevitable inference that Muhammad Ramzan had, all along, full knowledge about the proposed sale of the land by his father Allah Ditta and that by his conduct in not coming forward to buy the land at that time, he must be deemed to have waived and relinquished his right to pre-empt the sale. He urged that the fact that Muhammad Ramzan, pre-emptor, is the son of the vendor is by itself, sufficient to lead one to the above noted inference because the son can reasonably be presumed, in the circumstances of this case, to know about the sale of the land by his father even if no witness has been produced to prove the respondent's knowledge.
5. The counsel submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence on the record, while the learned High Court Judge had not even called for the record. As such it is evident that he could not have applied his mind to the petitioners contention that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence on the record while upsetting the decision of the learned trial Judge.
6. After carefully considering the matter we feel that this is a fit case for grant of leave to examine whether learned Additional District Judge had not misread the evidence which the High Court failed to examine. Leave is, therefore, granted for the above noted purpose. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000 as cost of printing. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents. M. Z. M. Leave granted.