1980 PLP 277 (SCMR)
BAHADUR SHER-Petitioner Versus LAL SHAH-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 277 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BAHADUR SHER-Petitioner Versus LAL SHAH-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 277 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 277 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 277 (SCMR) (BAHADUR SHER-Petitioner Versus LAL SHAH-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 30th September, 1979.
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16-5-1979 of the Peshawar High Court at Peshawar in Civil Revision No. 284 of 1978).
Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance (I of 1959), S. 3-Appreciation of relevant material for coming to finding that plaintiff intended to pre-empt sale of share of Shamilat land also-Held, did not con travene any law or principle-Argument on behalf of petitioner held without force-Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal by a vendee‑ defendant. It calls in question the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the two learned lower Courts decreeing the respondent's suit for pre‑emption qua about 12 kanals of land and dismissing the same regarding nearly three kanals of land in which the petitioner was able to establish his superior right of pre‑emption on account of claim of tenancy. The petitioner's plea before the High Court was that the respondent's entire suit should have been dismissed because he had failed to mention in his plaint "Shamilat" land which also formed part of the sale in favour of the petitioner. The learned Courts below after care fu lexamination of the pleadings of both the parties and their depositions during the trial cane to the conclusion that the respondent did also pre‑empt the sale of "Shamilat" land by using the phrase "mae jumla hukuk mutaliq aan arazi mutadawia". An additional circumstance was that the petitioner himself in his deposition had not used specific language to indicate either that he had purchased any "Shamilat" land or that the suit did not relate to the "Shamilat" land. The learned counsel has advanced the same argument in support of this petition and has contended that section 3 of West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, did not permit the "disposition" of Shamilat without specifying the Shamilat or the relevant portion thereof ; and that being so the plaintiff in his suit for pre‑emption regarding Shamilat land could not succeed without specifying the Shamilat land. He has also relied on two cases in this behalf one from Azad Jammu & Kashmir and another from the Peshawar High Court. There is a peculiar feature of evidence in this case. The averments made in the plaint have been examined by all the learned Courts below with reference to the written statement filed by the petitioner, the contents of the registered sale deed. the mutation which was attested as a result of the sale deed and the depositions made by both the parties. The appreciation of the aforementioned entire material for coming to the finding that the plaintiff intended to pre‑empt the sale of the share of the Shamilat land also, did not contravene any law or principle. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel is without any force. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.