1989 PLP 1796 (SCMR)
others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL BADSHAH and 5 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1796 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL BADSHAH and 5 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1796 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1796 (SCMR)?
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: 1989 PLP 1796 (SCMR) (others‑‑Petitioners Versus LAL BADSHAH and 5 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 28‑2‑1987 of the Peshawar High Court in (.'ivii Revision No.397 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.] 85(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether a pre‑emption decree could have been passed in favour of respondent after the declaration by a Civil Court that he was not a co‑sharer, and that being so, whether a decree could at all be passed in favour of other pre emptor; because in that eventuality he would have lost by application of the Rule of sinker and other related questions.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners we consider it a fit case for examination of the following questions:‑ (a) Whether a pre‑emption decree could have been passed in favour of respondent No‑2 after the declaration by a Civil Court that he was not a co‑sharer‑‑the qualification claimed by him as basis for his suit. (b) That being so, whether; a decree could at all be passed in favour of the other pre‑emptor (respondent No.l); because, in the aforesaid eventuality he would have lost by application of the rule of sinker. (c) Other related questions. Order accordingly and leave granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction for filing of all essential documents. Status quo to be maintained subject to all exceptions. M.A.K./M‑909/S Leave granted.