1984 PLP 1346 (SCMR)
Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Sardar ATTAULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1346 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Actg. C. J. , M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Sardar ATTAULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1346 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1346 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Actg. C. J. , M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1346 (SCMR) (Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus Sardar ATTAULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sibtul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1984.
- Syed Sibtul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 16-1-1984 in C.R. No.35-D of 1981).
Art. 185(3)--Point not pressed in High Court--Held, cannot be permitted to be raised before Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Sibtul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th March, 1984. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, Actg. C.J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 16‑‑1‑1984 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby a Civil Revision was dismissed and a decree for possession through pre‑emption passed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) was upheld. The petitioner, (defendant) has purchased the land in dispute through a Court decree. Respondents' suit for pre‑emption was decreed. Petitioner's appeal failed. He then filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court and pressed therein only the point regarding the pre‑emption money, It was however dismissed. Therefore this petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the point regarding the price. Instead tie sought to raise a new point regarding the nature of sale in his favour. In the circumstances of the case, he was riot permitted to do so as it was riot pressed in the High Court, we accordingly dismiss this petition. S.Q. Petition dismissed.