1990 PLP 552 (SCMR)
BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH SHAH and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 552 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH SHAH and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 552 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 552 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 552 (SCMR) (BASHIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FATEH SHAH and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Abdul Waahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.L.As. Nos.234‑R and 235‑R of 1988).
- M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30‑5‑1988, passed in R.S.A. Nos. 111/78 & 112/78). ‑‑‑S.30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal ‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Only question for consideration was whether the suit was filed within time‑‑‑Sale was entered in the register of mutations on 20‑4 1964, and same was attested on 28‑4‑1964, while suit was brought on 26‑4‑1965‑‑ Vendees' contention was that they had obtained possession under the sale on 20‑4‑1964 when mutation was entered, hence suit riled on 26‑4‑1965 was beyond limitation‑‑‑Although entry in the record indicated change of possession on the relevant date viz. 20‑4‑1964, yet the same was held to have been mutilated and suspected by the Courts below‑‑‑‑Question of finding of fact thus could not be upset by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave refused. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P.L.As. Nos.234‑R and 235‑R of 1988). M. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in both Petitions). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30‑5‑1988, arising out of a pre‑emption suit. Since these petitions arise out of the same order and between the same parties therefore both of them will be disposed by this single order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in both these petitions we have come to the conclusion that the only question for consideration is whether the suit was filed within time. The sale was entered in the register of mutation on 20‑4‑1964 and the same was attested on 28‑4‑1964 while the suit was filed on 26‑4‑1965. The vendees contended that they had obtained possession under the sale on 20‑4‑1964 and thus suit filed on 2G‑4‑1905 was barred by time. The Courts below repelled this contention. The entry in Khasra Girdawari Ex: D.1 showing the possession of the vendee long before the sale in question and thus the question of notice to the prospective pre‑emptors was not required. This entry remained even before the sale. Entry of Ex.P.8 was also referred to indicate the change of possession in the Khasra Girdawari but that was held to have mutilated and suspected. These entries were disbelieved by the Courts below. Since it was a question of findings of fact cannot be upset by this Court. In the light of the foregoing discussion we do not find it a fit case for the grant of leave. The petitions are, accordingly dismissed. A.A./B‑105/S Petitions dismissed.