1988 PLP 1583 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1583 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1583 (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 1988 PLP 1583 (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 1583 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL LATIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31-1-1985 in C.R. 2109-D of 1984).
S.21--Pre-emption suit--Question of fact--Plea taken by vendees was that as they had taken physical possession prior to the formal transaction of sale, therefore, the suit filed by pre-emptor within one year of the formal transaction of sale, was time-barred--Record showing that vendees had failed to establish the transfer of physical possession under the sale to the vendees at the relevant time--Plea of vendees repelled.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a petition by vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. Learned counsel has contended that the question of bar of limitation having rightly been decided by the trial Court against the respondent‑pre‑emptor, the two higher appeal Courts could not have upset the judgment of the trial Court, without cogent reasons. It is not denied that the question before the learned Courts below was also one of fact. The plea taken by the petitioners was that they had taken physical possession prior to the formal transaction of sale, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent within one year of the formal transaction of sale, was time‑barred. We having .perused the relevant record agree with the learned two appeal Courts that the petitioners had failed to establish the transfer of physical possession under the sale to the petitioners at the relevant time. After hearing the learned counsel on the question of fact raised by him, we do not find any force in it. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.B.A./M‑501/S Leave refused.