1994 PLP 1129 (SCMR)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1129 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1129 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1129 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1129 (SCMR) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Bench D.I. Khan dated 16‑11‑1992 passed in Civil Revision No. 98 of 1992). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XX, R.14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Suit for pre emption ‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed specified amount more as price of land in question, in addition to the amount already granted by Trial Court‑‑ Respondent's failure to deposit additional amount resulted in dismissal of suit‑‑‑Petitioner instead of filing objections in execution proceedings filed suit for declaration that suit for pre‑emption stood dismissed for non‑compliance under O.XX, R. 14, C.P.C:--‑Plaint was rejected against which appeal and revision had been dismissed‑‑‑High Court had rightly held that case attained finality after judgment of Supreme Court, which was not open to interpretation by a separate suit‑‑‑No legal infirmity in judgment in question, having been pointed out leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XX, R.14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Suit for pre emption ‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed specified amount more as price of land in question, in addition to the amount already granted by Trial Court‑‑ Respondent's failure to deposit additional amount resulted in dismissal of suit‑‑‑Petitioner instead of filing objections in execution proceedings filed suit for declaration that suit for pre‑emption stood dismissed for non‑compliance under O.XX, R. 14, C.P.C:--‑Plaint was rejected against which appeal and revision had been dismissed‑‑‑High Court had rightly held that case attained finality after judgment of Supreme Court, which was not open to interpretation by a separate suit‑‑‑No legal infirmity in judgment in question, having been pointed out leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th April, 1993. ORDER, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Petitioner purchased land in 1979 for Rs.1,15,620 and in that connection, two pre‑emption suits were filed by respondents herein, which were decreed. Petitioner filed appeals, which were allowed partially remanding the cases for assessment of market‑value. After failure of Revision in the High Court, petitioner approached Supreme Court and his appeals were accepted and he was allowed Rs.30,000 more as price of the disputed land in addition to the amount already granted by the trial Court.
2. Respondents did not deposit additional amount within time and in the result suits stood dismissed. Instead of filing objections in the execution proceedings, petitioner filed suit for declaration that suits of pre‑emption stood dismissed for non‑compliance under Order, 20 Rule 14 C.P.C. Plaint was rejected against which appeal and revision have been dismissed. High Court has rightly held that the case attained finality after judgment of the Supreme Court, which is not open to interpretation by a separate suit. Finding no flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, leave is refused and petition is dismissed as lacking merits. AA./A‑1073/S. Leave refused.