1989 PLP 168 (SCMR)
ALI RAZA SHAH — Petitioner Versus AHMAD BAKHSH — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 168 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALI RAZA SHAH — Petitioner Versus AHMAD BAKHSH — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 168 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 168 (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: 1989 PLP 168 (SCMR) (ALI RAZA SHAH — Petitioner Versus AHMAD BAKHSH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 1988.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
May, 1988. (On appeal from the Order dated 8-12-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No. 1516-D/1981). Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
Ss. 4 & 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Petitioner non-suited only on account of deficiency in court-fee--Leave to appeal granted to consider question. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 SC 289 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) ‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑PAitioncr non‑suited only on account of deficiency in court‑fee‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 SC 289 ref. Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th May, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J ‑‑Petitioner/plaintiffs suit for pre emption was decreed. First Appeal of the respondent/vendee was allowed by the District Court. The petitioner's Civil Revision seeking restoration of the decree having been dismissed by the High Court on 8‑12‑1981, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has been non -suited only on account of deficiency in the court‑fee. He has, in support of this petition, relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289), which, supports the case of the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, accordingly granted. Security, Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents. It shall be fixed for hearing along with other similar cases wherein the case Siddique Khan had been relied upon and leave has been granted, before the long vacations. M.Y.H./A‑347/S Leave granted.