1989SCMR95 (PLP)
AMIR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR95 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR95 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR95 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad 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: 1989SCMR95 (PLP) (AMIR MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Dismissal of vendees' regular second appeal by High Court, challenged--Partial pre-emption-, Unintentional omission by plaintiff pre-emptor in plaint to make specific mention of 1/6th share in an irrigation well which was also subject-matter of sale transaction, held, would not amount to partial pre-emption. Naeem-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Anwar 1986 S C M R 1488 rel.
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)--Leave to appeal, grant of- Question of fact--Interference with--Right of pre-emption--Petitioners' plea that respondents were not owners in the village and had no superior right of pre emption, not having been urged before trial Court not entertained--No justification having been made for interference on question of fact, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. Their learned counsel has pressed two points; (i) bar of partial pre emption against the respondents and (ii) that respondents were not owners in the village and, therefore, they have no superior right of pre‑emption. Regarding the first point, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel is that although 1/6th share in an irrigation well is also the subject‑matter of transaction of sale, no mention thereof was specifically made in the plaint. Such an unintentional omission, it has already been held by this Court, does not amount to partial pre‑emption‑‑See Naeeam‑ur‑Rehman v. Muhammad Anwar (1986 SCMR 1488). With regard to the second point, it would suffice to observe that it was not, as admitted by the learned counsel, urged before the trial Court. Be that as it may, it being a question of fact, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.I./A‑344/S Petition dismissed.