1990 PLP 388 (SCMR)
BADAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 388 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | BADAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 388 (SCMR) (BADAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana M. Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11th May, 1985 in Civil Revision No. 922‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Vendee's defence on claim of tenancy failed in Courts below‑‑‑Appellate Court and High Court having rendered findings of fact against vendee, there existed no justification for interference so as to examine the correctness of the findings of fact‑‑‑Leave to appeal was thus refused.
Judgment & Decree
Rana M. Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee/defendant in a suit for pre‑emption; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision against decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff side. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection. According to him the petitioner filed two Civil Revisions in the High Court against the same judgment and decree without informing the Court on the second occasion about the earlier dismissal. Accordingly no relief should be granted to the petitioner in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal and the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting only that part of the factual aspect of the preliminary objection which related to the riling of the two Civil Revisions and their dismissal, tried to give additional facts so as to explain petitioner's conduct. He also pointed out that same questions having already been agitated before the High Court, any order by this Court might influence its judgment which have (or might have) inter alia, involved the question of contempt of Court. In the circumstances of this case we refrain from making any comment on the preliminary objection and the reply thereto. After the disposal of the preliminary objection we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case. He has failed on question of fact relating to claim of tenancy. Both the learned Appeal Court and the High Court have rendered findings of fact against him. After hearing the learned counsel in this behalf we do not find any justification for interference so as to examine the correctness of the findings of I fact. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./B‑130/S. Leave refused.