SCMR 1979

1979 PLP 358 (SCMR)

QASIM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Review No. I‑P of 1978 in C. P. No. 194/P of 1975, decided on 23rd April 1979.
Honorable Judges
G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1979 PLP 358 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ
Parties QASIM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Primary Law Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI; r. 1 Review by Supreme Court‑Supreme Court holding land in suit measuring less than two kanals and purchased by vendee for construct ing houses to be not pre‑emptible‑Finding challenged in review on ground of vendee having difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from other co‑owners‑Challenge pertaining more to manner whereby vendee will construct houses on land having nothing to do with finding regarding non pre‑empribility of land held, not tenable and even otherwise, hardly a ground for review.‑, Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 358 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI; r. 1 Review by Supreme Court‑Supreme Court holding land in suit measuring less than two kanals and purchased by vendee for construct ing houses to be not pre‑emptible‑Finding challenged in review on ground of vendee having difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from other co‑owners‑Challenge pertaining more to manner whereby vendee will construct houses on land having nothing to do with finding regarding non pre‑empribility of land held, not tenable and even otherwise, hardly a ground for review.‑, Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 358 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 358 (SCMR) (QASIM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI; r. 1 Review by Supreme Court‑Supreme Court holding land in suit measuring less than two kanals and purchased by vendee for construct ing houses to be not pre‑emptible‑Finding challenged in review on ground of vendee having difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from other co‑owners‑Challenge pertaining more to manner whereby vendee will construct houses on land having nothing to do with finding regarding non pre‑empribility of land held, not tenable and even otherwise, hardly a ground for review.‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

Representation

  • M. Afzal Khan Bangash, Advocate (Peshawar) and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 23rd April 1979.

Headnotes / Summary

(Review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, of the Supreme Court judgment dated 18‑12‑1977).

Judgment & Decree

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This is a petition for review of an Order dated 18‑12‑1977 whereby Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 149/P of 1975 was dismissed by this Court. The facts of the case are given in detail in the aforesaid Order wherein it was held that the land dispute which measured less than two. kanals had been purchased by the vendee for constructing houses and as such was not pre‑emptible.

2. Learned counsel submits that the view expressed in the aforesaid Order is not correct inasmuch as the vendee will have difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from the other co‑owners. The contention i misconceived and, even otherwise, is hardly a ground to seek review on judgment because it pertains more to the manner in which the vendee will construct the houses on the land and has nothing to do with our finding regarding non‑pre‑emptibility of the sale transaction.

3. The petition has no merits and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.