1988 PLP 1553 (SCMR)
AHMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKEELA BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1553 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKEELA BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1553 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1553 (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 1553 (SCMR) (AHMAD BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAKEELA BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-1-1981 in R.S.A. No.61 of 1974/BWP (Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur).
S.15--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11(c)- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit for pre-emption- Deficiency in court-fee and its effect on limitation--Point already stood decided by Supreme Court which went against the petitioner--Leave to appeal refused. Siddique Khan's case P L D 1984 S C 289 eel. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
S.21--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent findings of fact-- Interference with--Question of possession vis-a-vis bar of limitation concluded by concurrent finding of fact of Courts below--Such question, held, could not be agitated before Supreme Court
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by vendee in a pre‑emption matter calls in question the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court on the sole ground pressed by his learned counsel: that the respondents' plaint should have been rejected on the ground of deficiency in court‑fee and the point of limitation connected therewith. This question now stands decided by the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 which goes against the petitioner. Leave to appeal therefore, cannot be granted on the question of court‑fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that the question of possession vis‑a‑vis bar of limitation was also raised from the petitioner's side but it stands concluded by a concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below against the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot and does not agitate the same. This petition thus has no force and is accordingly dismissed. M . I . / A‑251 / S Petition dismissed