1989 PLP 1264 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1264 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muliammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1264 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1264 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muliammad 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 1264 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zamir Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, dvocate‑on‑Record for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1988.
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for ptitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 26‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.1777/D of 1982). S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Deficiency in court‑fees‑‑Contention that decision of High Court on the question of court‑fees old not now be upheld on account of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of siddique Khan reported as PLD 1984 SC 289‑‑Law laid down by the Supreme curt did apply to the case and supported the contention‑‑Respondents having on unable to meet the contention, the petition was coverted into appeal and judgment of High Court was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for ptitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition by a pre‑emptor against the acceptance by the High Court of a Civil Revision filed by the respondents‑side on the question of the deficiency of court‑fee paid by the petitioners‑side, has been converted into appeal.
2. We have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioners/ appellants and the learned counsel for the caveat ors /respondents. The former has intended that decision of the High Court on the question of court‑fee cannot use upheld on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique an P L D 1984 S C
289. It obviously applies to this case and supports the above mention. The learned counsel for the respondents not having been able to meet contention, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and case is remanded to the High Court for the decision of the Civil Revision which hall be deemed to be pending. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./N‑168/S Case remanded.