1990 PLP 632 (SCMR)
ILAM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAIN BIB1 and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 632 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ILAM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAIN BIB1 and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 632 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 632 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 632 (SCMR) (ILAM DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. HUSSAIN BIB1 and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Majeed, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑5‑1985 in Civil Revision No.948‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit to enforce agreement of sale and for annulment of sale by the same vendors in favour of defendant‑vendee‑‑‑Suit was dismissed by all the Courts below including the High Court mainly on the ground of its having been presented in wrong form‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions raised in the petition as also the questions whether, the principles of Islamic Law with regard to the duties of a vendor in cases like the present one would not be attracted; if so, with what effect‑‑‑Leave to appeal having already been granted on the last mentioned question in another case, petition was allowed‑‑‑Both cases were to be heard together.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff's side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of the pica of the plaintiff to enforce an agreement of sale in his favour and at the same time to seek annulment of a sale by the same vendors in favour of respondent No.4 as collusive, without consideration, and of no effect against his interest. The petitioner's suit was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on the ground of it having been presented in a wrong form, The appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the suit. The High Court also upheld the same on similar grounds including one relating to non‑joinder of parties. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for examination of the questions raised in this petition as also the questions; whether, the principles of Islamic Law with regard to the duties of a vendor to cases like the present one would not be attracted; if so, with what would effect. Leave to appeal has already been granted on this latter question in Muhammad Abdullah (deceased) represented by Alam Bibi and 8 others v. Mumtaz Begum and 5 others C.P.‑718 of 185, today, though it is to be stated the facts in both the cases are not similar. ‑ Security‑‑Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to parties to File all essential documents. Both the appeals arising from this and the aforestated case shall be heard together. A.A./1‑93/S Leave granted.