1989 PLP 1208 (SCMR)
Pir ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIQ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1208 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Pir ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIQ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1208 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1208 (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: 1989 PLP 1208 (SCMR) (Pir ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus NATIQ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 6‑3‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in R.SA. No.468 of 1970). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Transaction whether sale or gift‑‑No infirmity in the judgment of High Court was found to hold that finding if fact reached by High Court that transaction was gift could not have been rendered in its second appellate jurisdiction‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal. The respondent had contested the suit on the assertion that the transaction in question was gift, and, therefore, it was not pre‑emptible. The petitioner's assertion that it was sale was accepted by the trial Court and the suit was decreed. The respondent's first appeal failed, but the High Court on second appeal filed by him accepted his plea that the transaction in question was gift. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant. record, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to hold that the finding of fact reached by the High Court could not have been rendered in its second appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel has failed to satisfy us in this behalf. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.BA./A‑485/S Leave refused.