1986 PLP 980 (SCMR)
Mst. NASIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUKHTIAR BANO — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 980 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NASIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUKHTIAR BANO — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 980 (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 980 (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 980 (SCMR) (Mst. NASIM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUKHTIAR BANO — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.H. Khurshid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Shamsuddin Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-5-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in R.S.A. No. 40 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Questions relating to appreciation of evidence having been fully considered and concurrently decided by three Courts--No question of law arising for consideration- Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This petition arises in a pre‑emption matter.
2. The petitioner is a vendee of a house situate in Multan. The sale of the disputed house in her favour was pre‑empted by the respondent. She has been found to have a superior right of pre‑emption and it has also been found that the custom of pre‑emption exists in the locality where the house is situate. These findings have been concurrently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. K.H. Khurshid, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging both these findings, has raised before us questions merely of appreciation of evidence. These questions have already been fully considered by the three Courts below. No question of law arises for consideration in this matter and the case is not fit for interference by this Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M. I.` Petition dismissed.