1989SCMR 1629 (PLP)
others Petitioners Versus SHER ZAMAN and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR 1629 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | others Petitioners Versus SHER ZAMAN and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 1629 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 1629 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR 1629 (PLP) (others Petitioners Versus SHER ZAMAN and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
1989. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 7th May, 1986 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No.1680/D/82 and Civil Revision No.1681/D/82). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Court‑fee‑ Contumacy‑‑Counsel conceded that the matter was covered by the judgment of Siddique Khan's case reported as P L D 1984 S C 289 but argued that question of "contumacy" would need examination in view of grant of leave in Muhammad Iqbai and others v. Abdul Hamid reported as 1986 S C M R 333‑‑Held, in lqbal's case judgment in Siddique Khan's case was not brought to the notice of Supreme Court and that in any case the case did not fall within the definition of `contumacy' as laid in the case of Siddique Khan‑‑No justification for interference was made out‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 and Muhammad Tqbal and others v. Abdul Hamid 1986 S C M R 333 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by r vendee in these two pre‑emption matters; against the impugned judgments of the High Court refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The controversy raised in this Court is; whether, in matter of court‑fee plaintiffs/pre‑emptors cast was covered by rule laid down by the Court in `Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another' P L D 1984 S C
289. After some arguments the learned counsel conceded that the present matter is covered by the said judgment; but, vehemently argued that question of "contumacy" would need examination by this Court. He has, in this behalf, relied upon leave granting =order 'Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Abdul Hamid 1986 SCMR
333. Firstly, in Iqbal's case, the judgment in the case of Siddique Khan was not brought to the notice of the Court. Secondly, in any case on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we have found that the present case does not fall within the definition of "contumacy" as laid down in the case of Siddique Khan. Thus no justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal is refused in these petitions. M.A.K./M‑904/S Leave refused.