1989SCMR331 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YUSUF and another — Petitioners Versus SAEED AK HTAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR331 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUSUF and another — Petitioners Versus SAEED AK HTAR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR331 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR331 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR331 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YUSUF and another — Petitioners Versus SAEED AK HTAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988.
- Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 31-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.SA. No. 482 of 1980).
S. 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Possession through pre emption--Findings of fact passed against petitioner by two Courts below- Petitioner unable to advance any argument against said findings in the High Court--No infirmity appearing in findings of fact--Leave to appeal refused against such findings.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Possession through pre emption‑‑Findings of fact passed against petitioner by two Courts below‑ Petitioner unable to advance any argument against said findings in the High Court‑‑No infirmity appearing in findings of fact‑‑Leave to appeal refused against such findings. Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The plaintiffs' side in a specific performance case has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court. The learned trial Judge rejected petitioners' claim for specific performance as first vendee when compared to the bona fide claim of purchase by the second vendee‑respondent No.2. On appeal, the findings of fact were affirmed by the learned District Judge. The High Court dismissed the second appeal after noticing that the two lower Courts had rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. The High Court also took note of the argument of the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioners that the alternative plea for possession through pre‑emption, was not properly dealt with. It was observed in the impugned judgment that this plea was not raised at the appellate stage. The learned counsel now appearing in support of this petition stated that he cannot raise the question of pre‑emption, because, no decree can now be passed through pre‑emption in petitioners' favour on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others (P L D 1988 SC 287). He, however, urged that the findings of fact by the two learned Courts below should have been interfered with in the second appeal. We do not agree with him. Firstly, the learned counsel appearing in the High Court had not then advanced any argument against the said findings; and, secondly, after having heard the learned counsel before us we have not been able to find any infirmity in them. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.