1989SCMR 1781 (PLP)
ASGHAR ALI alias SAJID and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR 1781 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI alias SAJID and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 11012) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR 1781 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 11012) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR 1781 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR 1781 (PLP) (ASGHAR ALI alias SAJID and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL KARIM and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27th May, 198.1 in Civil Revision No.849 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.52‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXI, R.58‑‑Objection to the execution of decree rejected by Courts below on the principle of lis pendens‑‑Petitioners' claim on the facts that they were purchasers pendente lite, had rightly been rejected on principle of lis pendens‑‑Objection petition on other grounds was not competent‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the objectors to the execution of a decree for possession, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision.
2. The petitioners' claim on the facts that they were purchasers pendent elite, has rightly been rejected on account of the principle of lis pendens.
3. The learned counsel, however, contended that the petitioners have also challenged the decree on other grounds which have not been attended to in the impugned judgment.
4. After some arguments, the learned counsel remained unable to advance his contention, when told that on the so‑called other grounds, the objection petition was not competent. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./A‑530/S Petition dismissed