1989 PLP 52 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Petitioners Versus HASSAIN AHMAD and 13 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 52 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Petitioners Versus HASSAIN AHMAD and 13 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 52 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Petitioners Versus HASSAIN AHMAD and 13 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mian Muhammad Yasin Zafri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑7.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court . Learned counsel contended that the High Court dismissed the appeal without summoning the record; that the question of ownership of estate was wrongly decided; and, the price of the land was also wrongly determined. The tenor of the judgment of the High Court and the contents of para. 5 thereof in particular where documents exhibited before the lower Court were referred to, are indicative of the fact that the record must have been formal, summoned by the Court or it was made available to it for the purposes of the disposal of the appeal. The first point raised by the learned counsel, therefore; fails. The other points are of fact. We have heard the learned counsel at some length arid examined the material relied upon by him; but do not find any justification for interference with A the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K./M‑626/S Leave refused.