1988 PLP 1390(1) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus SALEEM SARWAR — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1390(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus SALEEM SARWAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1390(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1390(1) (SCMR)?
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: 1988 PLP 1390(1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALAM — Petitioner Versus SALEEM SARWAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nasrullah Waraich, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
- Muhammad Nasrullah Waraich, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 25-5-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No .444/ D of 1985) .
S .21--Pre-emption suit--Plea of petitioner that he was owner in the estate was not taken up before the Trial Court or Appellate Court--Respondent was found to be co-sharer in the Khata--Petitioner's plea was rejected by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondent's suit for pre‑emption was decreed by the trial Court after holding that he was a co‑sharer in the khata of which the land sold formed a part. The decree was affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court.
2. The petitioner defended the suit on the ground that he was a tenant in the land in dispute and as such he had a prior right. His assertion was rejected by the Courts below and he has no longer pressed this plea before us. He however, claims that he was an owner in the estate. This plea was not taken up before the trial Court or before the Additional District Judge. In any event, it can hardly advance his case further as the respondent was found to be co‑sharer in the khata. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M. B.A./M‑475/S Petition dismissed.