1987 PLP 734 (SCMR)
SUBAH SADIQUE KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, Mr. LUTAF ALI KHAN, D.G. Khan and others‑‑Respondents.
| Citation | 1987 PLP 734 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | SUBAH SADIQUE KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, Mr. LUTAF ALI KHAN, D.G. Khan and others‑‑Respondents. |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 734 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 734 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 734 (SCMR) (SUBAH SADIQUE KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, Mr. LUTAF ALI KHAN, D.G. Khan and others‑‑Respondents.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑10‑1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 3928 of 1979). ‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Pre=emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22(4)‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Discretionary exercise of‑‑Conduct of petitioner‑‑Effect of‑‑Petitioner's suit for pre‑emption dismissed in revision due to his conduct in depositing one‑fifth price of suit land after obtaining extension in time twice‑‑Judgment challenged in writ jurisdiction which was dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Grant of relief in writ jurisdiction being discretionary, High Court's order declining to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner after taking into consideration all necessary elements in circumstances of case with regard to petitioner's conduct, upheld‑ There being no justification to interfere with exercise of discretion against petitioner due to his conduct, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Pre=emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22(4)‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Discretionary exercise of‑‑Conduct of petitioner‑‑Effect of‑‑Petitioner's suit for pre‑emption dismissed in revision due to his conduct in depositing one‑fifth price of suit land after obtaining extension in time twice‑‑Judgment challenged in writ jurisdiction which was dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑Grant of relief in writ jurisdiction being discretionary, High Court's order declining to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner after taking into consideration all necessary elements in circumstances of case with regard to petitioner's conduct, upheld‑ There being no justification to interfere with exercise of discretion against petitioner due to his conduct, leave to appeal refused. Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 24‑10‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's/plaintiffs writ petition arising out of his failure in a pre‑emption matter, was dismissed. The petitioner had failed to deposit one‑fifth price (Zar‑i‑Panjum) of the land in dispute by the date fixed in an order of the trial Court passed in that behalf. He sought an extension which was granted But he again failed to make the deposit by the due date. He again sought extension which was granted. This time, the petitioner made the deposit within due time. The respondents/ vendees filed a revision petition before the District Judge challenging the orders of the trial Court passed in favour of the petitioner regarding extension of time for deposit of the Zari‑Panjum. This revision petition was allowed and the orders were set aside with consequential failure of the petitioner's suit under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. The petitioner challenged the revisional order of the District Judge in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which having been dismissed on the ground of conduct of the petitioner, he has now sought leave to appeal. It is not denied that the grant of relief by the High Court in/ its writ jurisdiction is discretionay. A learned Single Judge in the High Court, after taking into consideration all the necessary elements in the circumstances of this case with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, declined to exercise that discretion. Even if it be assumed that there are some points in this case which might need consideration, l the impugned judgment being one having been passed by the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction, we find no justification to interfere with the exercise of discretion against the petitioner due to his conduct. Therefore, this petition, is dismissed. M.I. /S‑8/S Petition dismissed.