1988 PLP 1240 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1240 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1240 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1240 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1240 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 20‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.987/D of 1981). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑ Petitioner vendee contended that on account of deficiency in court‑fee, respondent pre‑emptor's plaint was liable to be dismissed‑‑Point raised by petitioner stood covered by decision of Supreme Court in P L D 1984 S C 289 which went against petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition is by a vendee and arises out of a pre‑emption matter. The respondent's suit for pre‑emption having been decreed by the trial Court, the petitioner's appeal and Civil Revision were dismissed. He has sought leave to appeal on the ground that on account of deficiency in court‑fee, the respondent's plaint was liable to be rejected.
2. The point raised is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v . Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 which goes against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. M.Y.H./B‑53/S Petition dismissed.