1989 PLP 49 (SCMR)
Mst. SEMAN — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 49 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SEMAN — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 49 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 49 (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: 1989 PLP 49 (SCMR) (Mst. SEMAN — Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Younas, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions).
- Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988.
- Raja Muhammad Younas, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both petitions).
- Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan, dated 1-7-1985 in C.R. No. 385 of 1985.)
Para. 25--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(31--Doctrine of sinker- Superior right of pre-emption--High Court dealt with question of superior right of pre-emption, on merits and held that even if question of some of petitioners being tenants, would have been examined by Higher Courts, the petitioners would have still failed on account of their having joined in the purchase a person, who according to their own showing, was not a tenant--No infirmity in judgment of High Court was found--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. Although several questions were raised before the High Court but the learned counsel has pressed only one point‑‑that of prior right of pre‑emption of the respondents/pre‑emptors. He contended that petitioners/vendees were the tenants of the suit land, therefore, the respondents had no superior right of pre emption. This argument was also raised before the High Court but was repelled with the observation and finding that it was not pressed before the lower appellate Court. This statement of fact in the impugned judgment is enough to dismiss this petition for leave to appeal. However, the learned Judge in the High Court dealt with this question on merits also and held that even if the question of some of the petitioners being tenants, would have been examined by the higher Courts A the petitioners would still have failed, on account of their having joined in the purchase a person who, according to their own showing, was not a tenant. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K./S‑212/S Leave refused.