1986 PLP 1455 (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus TAJAMAL HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1455 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus TAJAMAL HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1455 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1455 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1455 (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus TAJAMAL HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Ashraf Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court with Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1985.
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Ashraf Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court with Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the judgment dated 1-10-1980 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in R.S.A. No. 475 of 19801. --Art . 185(3)--Pre-emption Finding fact--Such finding not based on any misreading or -relevant evidence--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Ashraf Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court with Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1985. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. The question involved in this case is whether the suit for Pre-emptor filed by the pre-emptor was within limitation?
2. The sale, which was pre‑empted, was attested on 14‑10‑1968 and the suit to pre‑empt the sale was filed on 14‑10‑1969 within the prescribed period of one year. However, the plea of the vendee was that although the sale was attested on 14‑10‑1968 the mutation was entered on 20‑7‑1968 and the actual physical possession passed to him much before 14‑10‑1968 and since he (the vendee) had taken physical possession of the land under the sale before 14‑10‑1968 the suit filed on 14‑10‑1969 was barred by time. This aspect of the case was considered by the appellate Court, namely, Additional District Judge, Gujrat and he after going through the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, held as follows: "The vendee had failed to prove that he had taken possession of the suit land prior to, the attesation mutation (Exh.P.2)."
3. The above finding of the learned Additional District Judge has been upheld by the High Court. 4.Sh. Ghias Muhammad learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition for leave to appeal has prayed for reconsideration of the above finding.
5. We observe that the finding being assailed before us relates to a question of fact and that it has not been shown that this finding is based on any misreading or non reading of the relevant evidence.
6. There is no force in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. M. B. A. Petition dismissed.