1988 PLP 1329 (SCMR)
Mst. MUHAMMADI -Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AN WAR — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1329 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MUHAMMADI -Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AN WAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1329 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1329 (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 1329 (SCMR) (Mst. MUHAMMADI -Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AN WAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme. Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 831/81).
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C .P. 831/81).
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. 330/82).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 330/82).
- Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. 398/82).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 398/82).
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. 432/82).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 432/82).
- Sh. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.Ps. 459 & 460/82).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.Ps. 459 & 460/82).
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.Ps. 782 & 783/82).
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.Ps. 782 & 783/82).
- Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. 926/82).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. 926/82).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. 1001/82).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. 1001/82).
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1988.
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme. Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 831/81).
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C .P. 831/81).
- Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. 398/82).
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.Ps. 782 & 783/82).
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.Ps. 782 & 783/82).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. 1001/82).
Headnotes / Summary
Art.203-D (3)(b)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.15 30--Decree had not been passed in favour of the pre-emptors before 31-71986 when the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 came into effect--No de ee, held, could be passed in their favour now. Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A. 208/80 and 27 other matters P L D 1988 S C 287 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑All these petitions involve the same question of law. Therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that none of the petitioners /pre‑emptors in these cases have so far succeeded. In other words, no decree has been passed in favour of the pre‑emptors in these cases before the 31st of July, 1986, when the judgment of this Court in the case of Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 came into effect. That being so, as held in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A. 208/80 and 27 other matters decided on 2‑5‑1988: P L D 1988 S C 287), no decree can be passed in their favour now. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. M . B . A ./M‑458/ S Petition dismissed.