1989 PLP 1171 (SCMR)
NAURANG and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1171 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NAURANG and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1171 (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 1989 PLP 1171 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1171 (SCMR) (NAURANG and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record and Malik Allah Wasaya, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from ‑the judgment, dated 4‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court; Lahore, passed in Regular Second Appeal No.292 of 1975). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Question was as to whether the transaction was sale or exchange‑‑High Court found that Trial Court's view that it was exchange was correct‑‑No such point was urged, which could justify interference with the view of the High Court by Supreme Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition by pre‑emptor is directed against a Judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby respon4ent/Vendee's Regular Second Appeal was allowed.
2. The learned Trial Court accepted the respondent/vendee's plea that the transaction in question was that of exchange, therefore, the petitioners' suit was dismissed. His appeal was allowed by the District Court. It was held that the transaction was of sale, the trial Court's Judgment was reversed and a decree for pre‑emption was passed. The vendee ten filed‑ the Regular Second Appeal, whereupon the finding by the lower appellate Court that the transaction was one of sale was reversed and the finding that it was one of exchange rendered by the trial Court was restored with the result that the High Court dismissed the petitioners' suit for pre‑emption.
3. In seeking leave to appeal, no such point has been urged on behalf of the petitioners, which could justify interference by this Court either on point of law or fact. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.BA./N‑150/S Petition dismissed.