1986 PLP 955 (SCMR)
Mian GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 955 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | Mian GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 955 (SCMR) (Mian GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1986.
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 16-6-1984, in R.S. A. No. 46 of 1981).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Petitioner not allowed to urge new points as Supreme Court would be deprived of views of lower Courts--Substantial justice having been done by first appellate Court, leave to appeal refused. Muhammad Wazir v. Chaudhri Jahangir Mal and others PLD 1949 Lah. 1 and Nur Ahmad and others v. B. Muhammad Ibrahim and another P L D 1953 Lah. 470 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A vendee has sought leave to appeal from judgment dated 16‑6‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his second appeal arising out of a pre‑emption case was dismissed.
2. The respondent's suit for pre‑emption was dismissed on the ground that a sale through decree for specific performance was not pre‑emptible See Muhammad Wazir v. Chaudhri Jahangir Mal' and others (P.L.D. 1949 Lahore 1). The issue regarding limitation was however decided in pre‑emptor's favour. During first appeal the petitioner who was to appear as respondent did not attend the Court at the time of hearing nor was his counsel present. The appeal was heard ex parse and decided against the petitioner even on the point of pre‑emptability of the sale in question (See Nur Ahmad and others v. B. Muhammad Ibrahim and another PLD 1953 Lah. 470 (F.B) and the suit was decreed: The petitioner challenged the first appellate 'ex parte judgment in the High Court. Two points of limitation and pre‑emptibility of the sale are discussed in the High Court judgment. It is also mentioned in the judgment that the first appellate court was not at fault in proceeding against the petitioner ex parte; as, the said court waited enough for some one to appear on behalf of the petitioner and then proceeded ex parte.
3. Leave to appeal has not been sought from High Court judgment which has affirmed the first appellate judgment. Learned counsel in the very beginning stated that he would not urge any of the points noticed and decided by the High Court. He wanted instead to argue the petition on absolutely new points which are of law hence can be raised according to him.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on the first point of technical nature as to whether on the facts of this case the first appellate Court should have proceeded ex parte, we decided not to permit the new points to be urged now, Substantial justice was done by the 1st appellate court. By permitting new points, in the circumstances of the case, we would be deprived of the views of the learned lower courts on the fresh points. Thus it is not a fit case for leave to appeal which is hereby refused. M. I. Petition dismissed.