1989SCMR465 (PLP)
FALAKHER and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR465 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FALAKHER and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR465 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR465 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR465 (PLP) (FALAKHER and others — Petitioners Versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th pctober,1988.
- Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment 14f the Lahore High Court, dated 13-6-1988, passed in Writ Petition No.5738 of 1987). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)..
Art.185(3)--Board of Revenue and High Court having rightly held that application for redemption was in time, their orders were unexceptionable- Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Board of Revenue and High Court having rightly held that application for redemption was in time, their orders were unexceptionable‑ Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th pctober,1988. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a lear4ed Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑6‑1988.
2. The respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest had mortgaged certain lands through mutation attested on 29‑8‑1923 at the hands of the predecessor‑ interest of the petitioners. On 21‑11‑1983 the respondents moved an application before the Collector, Shahpur, for redemption of the mortgage. This application was rejected on 28‑4‑1984 holding that the same was barred by time. The appeal of the respondents was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 31‑10‑1984. On being approached, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, accepted the revision petition of the respondents and allowed the redemption. The writ petition of the petitioners has also been dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the orders of the Board of Revenue and that of the learned Single Judge and are of the view that the orders impugned before us are unexceptionable in that it has rightly been held that the application for redemption was in time.
4. Finding no force the petition is dismissed. M.A.K./F‑84/S Petition dismissed.