1988 S (PLP)
SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus RAHIM BUX and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 S (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus RAHIM BUX and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 S (PLP)?
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 S (PLP)?
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 S (PLP) (SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus RAHIM BUX and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th May, 1988.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 20th March, 1984 in R.S.A. No 103 of 1982).
S.21--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100--Second Appeal--High Court, in Second Appeal, found on question of fact that transaction in the pre-emption suit was not a sale but exchange--High Court, while deciding said question of fact, was conscious of the limitations in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction as Second Appellate Court was concerned, and there was no infirmity in such findings--Supreme Court also examined the case on merit and declined interference. Fazal Rahman v . Amir Haider 1986 S C M R 1814 ref
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 20th of March, 1984 whereby the respondents' Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The learned counsel has contended that the two Courts below had given findings of fact in favour of the petitioner that the transaction in question was sale but the High Court allowed the respondents' regular second appeal on this question of fact and held that the transaction was of exchange. This, as argued by the learned counsel, was not permissible under section 100, C.P.C. He has relied upon Fazal Rahman v. Amir Haider (1986 S C M R 1814) to support his contention. We have heard the learned counsel on the question of law raised by him and after going through the impugned judgment, are satisfied that the learned Judge in the High Court was conscious of the limitations in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction as second appellate Court is concerned. Not only this, we also heard the learned counsel on merits and have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused. M.B.A./S‑158/S Leave refused.