P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)
KHALID LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH JAWAYA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑O.VII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaint‑ Trial Court and High Court decided case in favour of respondents, on the basis of points, not specifically taken in the plaint‑‑Held, even if plaint had not been properly drafted and there was defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself was not enough to grant leave to appeal, in circumstances. p. 629 A |
| Bench Members | Muhanunad Afzal Zullah |
| Parties | KHALID LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH JAWAYA and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑O.VII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaint‑ Trial Court and High Court decided case in favour of respondents, on the basis of points, not specifically taken in the plaint‑‑Held, even if plaint had not been properly drafted and there was defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself was not enough to grant leave to appeal, in circumstances. p. 629 A bench comprising: Muhanunad Afzal Zullah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1988 Supreme Court 629 (PLP) (KHALID LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH JAWAYA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Nasrullah Waraich, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain_ Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: lst June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 27‑4‑1985 in W.P.No.179 of 1985/B.W.P.). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.VII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Plaint‑ Trial Court and High Court decided case in favour of respondents, on the basis of points, not specifically taken in the plaint‑‑Held, even if plaint had not been properly drafted and there was defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself was not enough to grant leave to appeal, in circumstances. [p. 629] A
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendees' petition for leave to appeal in a pre‑emotion matter against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The respondents‑pre‑emptors' suit was based on the ground of tenancy. It was decreed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners' appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner; but they ,again lost before the Member, Board of Revenue in revision, who restored the decree passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success. ,They have, therefore, now sought leave to appeal. The question raised is with regard to a fact. It is correct that the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction while setting aside the appellate order did not give adequate reasons in support of his order. The learned Judge in the High Court, however, as it appears from the impugned Judgment asked the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to argue the case on merits. The opportunity was availed of and the learned Judge in chambers heard the case "at some length"; and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plea on question of fact raised by the petitioners' counsel was not sustainable on record. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before us that the point on the basis of which the trial Court and A the High Court decided the case in favour of the respondents was not specifically taken in their plaint. We also afforded an opportunity to the learned counsel to satisfy us on merits regarding findings of fact. But, he continued pressing the technical arguments. Even if it be assumed that the plaint had not been properly drafted and there is defect in the respondents' pleadings, that by itself is not enough in the circumstances of this case to grant leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is, refused and the petition is dismissed. h . B . A . / K‑60/ S Petition dismissed