1988 PLP 1374 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1374 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zallah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1374 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1374 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zallah 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 1374 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus GUL MUHAMMAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1988.
- Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- The learned counsel has stated that there are two sets of vendees in this case. On a certain date of hearing Gul Muhammad, vendee defendant /respondent was present as also Mr. Muhammad Shaft, Advocate (the learned counsel appearing for him and also the other vendees‑defendants), was present. They made statements that the suit be decreed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, it was revealed that Gul Muhammad had no authority to make any such statement on behalf of his other co‑vendees/defendants. Therefore, on their objection, the petitioner has been non‑suited throughout. The learned counsel further reiterated the fact that the statement of consent was not only made by 6ul Muhammad but also by the counsel for all the defendants/vendees. Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that Gul Muhammad had no authority to make any statement on behalf of his co, the latter could not have disowned the statement made by their counsel on their behalf. This question, it seems, has nut been properly attended to. The same as also the other points raised to this petition, require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5 000/‑. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional essential documents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29-1-1983 in C.R. No.6-D of 1982/BWP). --S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Statement of consent by one defendant--Question as to the statement of consent by the counsel on behalf of all defendants/ vendees not properly attended to by Courts below--Leave to appeal granted to examine the question and other points raised in the petition.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. The learned counsel has stated that there are two sets of vendees in this case. On a certain date of hearing Gul Muhammad, vendee defendant /respondent was present as also Mr. Muhammad Shaft, Advocate (the learned counsel appearing for him and also the other vendees‑defendants), was present. They made statements that the suit be decreed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, it was revealed that Gul Muhammad had no authority to make any such statement on behalf of his other co‑vendees/defendants. Therefore, on their objection, the petitioner has been non‑suited throughout. The learned counsel further reiterated the fact that the statement of consent was not only made by 6ul Muhammad but also by the counsel for all the defendants/vendees. Therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that Gul Muhammad had no authority to make any statement on behalf of his co, the latter could not have disowned the statement made by their counsel on their behalf. This question, it seems, has nut been properly attended to. The same as also the other points raised to this petition, require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5 000/‑. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional essential documents. 61.B.A./A‑241/S Leave granted.