1986 PLP 1592 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHER and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1592 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHER and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1592 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1592 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1592 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHER and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1986.
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 13-3-1984 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 988 of 1984).
Art. 199--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15--Question as to what was sale price of suit land in pre-emption suit, held, was a question of fact and any finding thereon could not be challenged before High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The Collector, while decreeing the pre‑emption suit of the petitioners, granted them a decree on payment of Rs.1,29,
000. The petitioners challenged the finding of the Collector regarding the amount of sale price through an appeal. But this was dismissed (by the Additional Commissioner). Their further revision to the Board of Revenue was also dismissed and the writ petition filed against these orders, before the High Court, also failed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The question as to whether the sale price was indeed Rs.1,29,000 is clearly a question of fact and any finding thereon could not successfully be challenged before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere and such a decision cannot be interfered with by this Court. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed .