1986 PLP 334 (SCMR)
ATA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 334 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | ATA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 334 (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 334 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 334 (SCMR) (ATA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus KARIM BAKHSH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑3‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No. 376 of 1972). ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.115‑‑Second appeal‑‑Admitted facts‑‑Inferences arising from admitted facts does amount to question of law in certain cases‑ Question whether facts of case could be said to constitute waiver of a right, in circumstances, held, would not merely a question of fact and could be examined in second appeal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The question involved in this case was whether the petitioner, who was a pre‑emptor, could be considered to have abandoned his right, through waiver? The learned Judge in the High Court very carefully considered this aspect of the matter and after discussing the entire evidence on the record reached the conclusion that the circumstances of the case "amply support an inference of waiver against the respondent" (before it and petitioner herein). He, accordingly, dismissed the pre‑emptor's suit. This petition is directed against the said order of the High Court. Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, learned counsel for they petitioner, has submitted that a finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Judge was reversed by the High Court in this case and that this was not possible in a second appeal. This submission is based on a misconception. The learned Judge has based his impugned finding on the basis of admitted facts. The inference arising from the admitted facts does, in certain cases, amount to a question of law. Thus, the question whether the admitted facts in this case could be said to constitute waiver of a right. In the circumstances, is not merely a question of fact and could have been examined in a second appeal dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.