1995 PLP 935 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 935 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 935 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 1‑12‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No. 1794 of 1984). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Right of pre emption ‑‑‑Waiver‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Plaintiff had based his claim on his being collateral of vendor‑‑‑Such claim was accepted by defendant‑‑‑Defendant had absolutely failed to establish plea of waiver‑‑‑Judgment of High Court rejecting plea of waiver was not open to exception‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑12‑1992.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent brought a suit for possession through pre‑emption. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat. The petitioner's appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, and the case was remanded. The respondent, being aggrieved,; challenged the order of the Additional District Judge before the High Court. The learned Judge in Chambers accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of remand and maintained the order of the learned Civil Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had waived his right of pre‑emption. He has referred to Exh.D/1, whereby the respondent waived his right of tenancy. Nowhere it is mentioned that he had abandoned his right of pre‑emption. The respondent based his claim being the collateral of the vendor, and the learned counsel has accepted that the respondent is collateral. The petitioner has absolutely failed to establish the plea of waiver. The judgment of the High Court is not open to exception. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. A.A./N‑389/S Leave refused.