1989SCMR73 (PLP)
MAQBOOL AH MAD and others Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR73 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AH MAD and others Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN — Respondent |
| 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 1989SCMR73 (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 1989SCMR73 (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: 1989SCMR73 (PLP) (MAQBOOL AH MAD and others Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Meno for Respondents.
- Sardar M. Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15th July, 1984 in C.R. No. 1184/P/1984).
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Right of pre-emption Plea that pedigree table produced from pre-emptor's side was misread. not sustained--Leave to appeal refused.
S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Vendees' plea that they were not afforded enough opportunity to produce evidence which was wrongly closed, not entertained because several adjournments were granted to them for the purpose--Leave to appeal refused. Sardar M. Tufail Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is vendees' petition in a pre‑emption matter. The points pressed by their learned counsel are: (i), that the pre‑emptor could not establish his superior right of pre‑emption on the basis of collatoralship and that the pedigree table produced from the respondent‑pre emptor's side has been misread; and (ii), that the evidence of the petitioners had wrongly been closed. With the help of the learned counsel, we examined the pedigree table referred by him which is at p.67 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel the names of the vendor and the pre‑emptor do not appear in this pedigree table. Therefore, it was of no assistance to the respondent. Learned counsel has not correctly read the pedigree table in this behalf. A Moreover, we after having read the statement of the pre‑emptor as his own witness, are satisfied that the so‑called omission was only technical. It was adequately supplied by the deposition of the respondent with regard to his relationship. Nothing was brought in his cross‑examination so as to benefit the petitioners. The first argument, therefore, fails. With regard to the second argument, the learned counsel contended than the petitioners were not afforded enough opportunity to produce evidence. Therefore, the same could not be closed. He, however, admitted that several adjournments were granted to them for this purpose. That being so, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal on this point. The next point half‑heartedly argued by the learned counsel is that the petitioners' side had better qualification as prior pre‑emptors being tenants is also without force, as necessary evidence was not placed before the trial Court. In this behalf, the learned counsel relied upon a deed which records the petitioners' possession but the same as admitted by him, as mortgagee and not as tenant. Similarly, another point raised by the learned counsel regarding impleadment of another party is too technical for this stage, to be given any importance. The petition fails and accordingly is dismissed. M.I./M‑606/S Petition dismissed.