1990 PLP 475 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 475 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 475 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 475 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 475 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED and 7 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 20‑5‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 117/81 and 118/81). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Defendants' objection to jurisdiction of Court was overruled by trial Court‑‑‑Defendants' revision challenging trial Court's jurisdiction was dismissed‑‑‑Defendants, thereafter, accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it any further‑‑‑Point of jurisdiction which was given up by the defendants after revisional order was passed against them in the first round of litigation, was re‑agitated before the High Court in the second round of litigation‑‑‑Same point was raised before Supreme Court which had been raised before the High Court‑‑‑Apart from the fact that there was no merit in the arguments as to jurisdiction, defendants having accepted the revisional order in the earlier round of litigation, no useful purpose would be served in granting them leave to appeal on the same point at the instance of defendants‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Defendants' objection to jurisdiction of Court was overruled by trial Court‑‑‑Defendants' revision challenging trial Court's jurisdiction was dismissed‑‑‑Defendants, thereafter, accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it any further‑‑‑Point of jurisdiction which was given up by the defendants after revisional order was passed against them in the first round of litigation, was re‑agitated before the High Court in the second round of litigation‑‑‑Same point was raised before Supreme Court which had been raised before the High Court‑‑‑Apart from the fact that there was no merit in the arguments as to jurisdiction, defendants having accepted the revisional order in the earlier round of litigation, no useful purpose would be served in granting them leave to appeal on the same point at the instance of defendants‑‑‑Leave refused. Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. The petitioners/vendees/defendants in a pre‑emption suit objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was over-rulled by the trial Court. Their civil revision challenging the order of the trial Court was dismissed. They accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it any further. The trial Court decided the pre‑emption suit on merits and passed a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The decree was then challenged by the petitioners in First Appeal before the District Court, but without any success. They then challenged the decree before the High Court in Regular Second Appeals, which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. The point of jurisdiction raised before the trial Court but given up after the revisional order passed against the petitioners in the first round, was reagitated before the High Court. The learned counsel has reiterated the same point' before us. Apart from the fact that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel, we have noticed that the petitioners, having accepted the revisional order in the earlier round of litigation, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal now on the same point at the asking of the petitioners. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. A.A./M‑972/S Petitions dismissed.