1988 PLP 1407 (SCMR)
GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WAS AYA — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1407 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WAS AYA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1407 (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 1407 (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 1407 (SCMR) (GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WAS AYA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid A. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
- Hamid A. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 24-5-1983 in Regular Second Appeal No.964 of 1969).
S.21--Pre-emption suit--Waiver--Contention that finding that the petitioner was a party to the transaction, had not been given in true perspective as there were two transactions and if at all, the finding was given against him with regard to one of them--High Court had in the judgment considered entire conduct of the petitioner, who was the son of the vendee and came to the conclusion that it was the cumulative effect of several circumstances that the judgment had to be rendered against the petitioner on the question of waiver--Such finding of fact of High Court suffering from no infirmity--Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a pre‑emptor's petition for leave to appeal calling in question the acceptance of respondent's Regular Second Appeal, by the High Court. The petitioner has been non‑suited on the ground of waiver. The learned counsel has contended that the finding that the petitioner was a party to the transaction, has not been given in true perspective. According to him, there were two transactions. If at all, the finding was given against him with regard to one of them. Be that as it may, the High Court has in the impugned judgment considered the entire conduct of the petitioner, who is the son of the vendor. It came to the conclusion that it was the cumulative effect of several circumstances that the judgment had to be rendered against the petitioner on the question of waiver. The findings of fact do not suffer from any legal infirmity either. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. MA.B.A./13‑103/S Leave refused.