1988 PLP 1369 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1369 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1369 (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 1369 (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 1369 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Ahmad Chatta, Advocate Supreme Court (with permission) and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents Nos. l to 2 and 4.
- Walayat Umar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1988.
- Arshad Ahmad Chatta, Advocate Supreme Court (with permission) and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents Nos. l to 2 and 4.
- Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7.4-12-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R.No.1630-D of 1982).
S.21--Pre-emption suit--Pre-emptor succeeded in obtaining a decree before the Trial Court, but failed to deposit the pre-emption money in time and lost the benefit--Ti -ie-barred appeal and then revision by pre-emptor were dismissed--Courts below did not accept the explanation of pre-emptor for not depositing the money in time and that being a question of fact, Supreme Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The petitioner /pre‑emptor succeeded in obtaining a decree before the trial Court, but failed to deposit the pre‑emption money in time and lost the benefit. His time‑barred appeal was dismissed. His Civil Revision was also dismissed, therefore, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The explanation advanced before the learned Courts below for the failure of the petitioner in regard to the deposit of the pre‑emption money has not been accepted. It is a question of fact and in that p regard we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M. B. A. /M‑468/S Petition dismissed.