1994 PLP 369 (SCMR)
LASSA SHEIKH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MATEEN HAMEED‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 369 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi, Khan, JJ |
| Parties | LASSA SHEIKH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MATEEN HAMEED‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 369 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 369 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi, Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 369 (SCMR) (LASSA SHEIKH and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MATEEN HAMEED‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑1‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Revision No. 142‑D of 1992 and C.R. No. 143‑D of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 41‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Respondent purchasing plot in question, for consideration from the allottee of the plot Form submitted by petitioner of transfer of plot in question had been rejected and he had not agitated against the order of rejection‑‑‑Respondent, thus, had a valid title‑‑‑Petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order of High Court whereby his revision was rejected‑‑‑No point of law of public importance requiring decision by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 41‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Respondent purchasing plot in question, for consideration from the allottee of the plot Form submitted by petitioner of transfer of plot in question had been rejected and he had not agitated against the order of rejection‑‑‑Respondent, thus, had a valid title‑‑‑Petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order of High Court whereby his revision was rejected‑‑‑No point of law of public importance requiring decision by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1993. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 12‑1‑1993.
2. The facts of the case are that the plot in question was allotted to Shaukat Hussain in the year 1962 and transfer order was also issued in his favour on 23‑5‑1980. The respondent had purchased the said plot from Shaukat Hussain. The petitioner No.l filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration to the effect that the transfer of the aforesaid plot in favour of Shaukat Hussain was void and illegal. The case of the petitioner was that he being a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir and in possession of the plot was entitled to its transfer. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondent had also filed a suit for possession of the plot. His suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged these decrees in appeal before the Additional District Judge but his appeals were dismissed. He unsuccessfully challenged the two orders before the High Court in Civil Revisions. It is an admitted fact that Shaukat Hussain was transferee of the plot in question. The respondent had purchased it for consideration. The form submitted by the petitioner No.'1 for the transfer of this plot was rejected. He did not agitate against the order of rejection of his application. The respondent has a valid title. The petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order.
3. No point of law of public importance requires decision by this Court. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./L‑61/S Leave refused.