1988 PLP 1645 (SCMR)
Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus TAJA — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1645 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus TAJA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1645 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1645 (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 1645 (SCMR) (Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI and others — Petitioners Versus TAJA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A. Aasam Jafery, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
- S.A. Aasam Jafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, dated 2-7-1985 passed in Civil Revision No.1439/D of 1982).
S.115 & O.IX, R.9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Revision petition dismissed in default--Application for restoration failed--Petitioners unable to show sufficient cause for restoration of their revision petition and having no case on merit--Leave to appeal refused.
S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of-- Concurrent findings of fact--Interference with--Pre-emption suit--Petitioners claiming compensation for improvements effected on land in dispute--Two Courts below holding that petitioners had not made any improvements--Such concurrent findings not suffering from any infirmity--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. They are both barred by time. For the reasons stated by the learned counsel, we condone the delay.
2. The petitions arise out of two suits for pre‑emption which were, after remand, decreed by the trial Court and the petitioners' appeal before the Additional District Judge remained un-successful. They filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed in default. The application for restoration met the same fate. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. Apart from the consideration that the petitioners were unable to show sufficient cause for the restoration of their revision petition, they also had no case on merit. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were not given compensations for the improvements the had effected on the land in dispute. The trial Court and the Additional District Judge held that they had' not made any improvements. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy u that the said concurrent finding suffered from any infirmity. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. M.I. /S‑169/S Petitions dismissed.