1988 PLP 1366(2) (SCMR)
RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus ALI HASSAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1366(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus ALI HASSAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1366(2) (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 1988 PLP 1366(2) (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 1366(2) (SCMR) (RASHID and others — Petitioners Versus ALI HASSAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Ch.Amjad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1988.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch.Amjad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-12-1983 in R.S.As. Nos.401 and 402 of 1974). --S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Estoppel-- Receipt--Finding of fact by High Court about genuineness of receipt did not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise--Leave to appeal against Judgment of High Court in favour of vendee refused. CIVIL PETITION Nos.74 AND 75 of 1984.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the pre‑emptors' side against the acceptance of the Regular Second Appeal of the respondents/ vendees' side by the High Court. The only issue pressed during the argument by the learned counsel is of estoppel. (Ex. D.3)‑‑the receipt has been used against the petitioners. If the receipt Ex. D.3 is genuine, the learned counsel conceded that the petitioners would have no case. After hearing the arguments on the question of the genuineness of the receipt, we are satisfied that the findings of fact reached by the High Court in this behalf do not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. These petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./R‑55/S Petition dismissed.