1990 PLP 759 (SCMR)
FAQIR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 759 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAQIR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 759 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 759 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 759 (SCMR) (FAQIR HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus QURBAN HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court, Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑7‑1989 in W.P. 3316 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.172‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Contention of petitioners that question of jurisdiction of Court should have been decided first by Trial Court, was finally repelled by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction holding that since issue relating to Court's jurisdiction involved factual controversy regarding nature of suit land, Courts below rightly observed that issue could not be decided without recording evidence‑‑‑View taken by High Court, being in accordance with law petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 27th November, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5‑7‑1989 whereby their Constitution petition was dismissed in limine. The petitioners raised a preliminary legal objection pertaining to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. . Their grievance is that the question of jurisdiction should not have been deferred to be decided alongwith other issues. Petitioners requested the trial Court in black and white to first deal with the question of jurisdiction. Their request was turned down by order dated 14‑5‑1989. They appealed against that order. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 27‑5‑1989. As a last resort they invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but did not succeed there. Relying on section 172 of the Land Revenue Act learned counsel argued that the question of jurisdiction ought to have been decided first. This contention has no force because the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court who dealt with the Constitution petition observed, "I find that the issue relating to the Court's jurisdiction involves factual controversy regarding the nature of the suit land. It has, therefore, been rightly observed by the Courts below that the issue could not be decided without recording the evidence. It is also not denied that the plaintiff‑respondent has already produced some evidence on all the issues." The aforesaid view of the High Court is in accordance with law. There is no other point worth examination. Dismissed. H.B.T./F‑161/S. Petition dismissed.