1988 PLP 1527 (SCMR)
MAHBOOB AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1527 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAHBOOB AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1527 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1527 (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 1527 (SCMR) (MAHBOOB AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hafeea Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M.Shaukat Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Ch., Advocate- on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
- Ch. Hafeea Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M.Shaukat Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Ch., Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 2-3-1985 in R.F.A. No.35 of 1985).
S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Findings of fact--Interference with--Pre-emption--Superior right--Petitioners claiming to be owners in estate by virtue of a document, challenging superior right of respondent-pre-emptor as also adequacy of amount awarded as compensation by Trial Court--Questions raised having been concluded by findings of fact by High Court--Leave to appeal refused.
O.XXXII, R.3--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit by or against minor--Guardian ad- litem--Appointment of--Suit for pre-emption--Vendees' appeal dismissed by High Court--Order impugned--Plea that one of the petitioners being a minor, proper guardian ad litem was not appointed at proper time, not entertained in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported as 1986 S C M R 254 which was against petitioners--Leave to appeal refused. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar 1980 S C M R 254 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court. Learned counsel has raised. three points: (i) that the petitioners were also the owners in the estate by virtue of the document Ex.D.2 therefore, the respondent/ pre‑emptor had no superior right of pre‑emption; (ii) that the amount awarded as compensation by the trial Court is not proper. It should have been Rs.25,000; and (iii) that one of the petitioners being a minor proper guardian ad‑litem was not appointed at proper time. The first question raised by the learned counsel stands concluded by a finding of fact regarding the document Ex.D.2. The learned counsel has not been able to assail the same before us successfully. The assumption regarding the amount of improvements, in our estimate, was not wrong. Be that as it may, this question also stands concluded by findings of fact. On the last question, the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar 1980 S C M R 254 goes against the petitioners. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.I./M‑488/S Petition dismissed.