1985 PLP 1790 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMID — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1790 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1790 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1790 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1790 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMID — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1985.
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-10-1984 in Civil Revision No. 1402/D-84).
Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S: 21--Suit for pre-emption- -Proper valuation of--Suit for pre-emption held undervalued for purposes of court-fee, by not including value of a well--Order reversed in appeal on ground that well was not separate from agricultural land but subservient to it--Decision upheld in revision--There being no justification to disagree with finding of fact as to suit being properly valued, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑In this petition the dispute is in regard to the under valuation of the pre‑emption suit. The trial Court held that the value of the well in Khasra No. 635 had not been included in the statement of 'Fard Khalis Profit' and accordingly the suit was under valued for the purpose court‑fee. But the appellate Court held that the well was not separate from the agricultural land but subservient to it and accordingly the suit was not under valued. The High Court in civil revision also upheld the conclusion of the appellate Court and we see no justification to disagree with this finding of fact as to the suit being properly valued. Accordingly the petition has no force and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.