1989 PLP 335 (CLC)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 335 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad ldtan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 335 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 335 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad ldtan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 335 (CLC) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR BAKHSH‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Habib Ahmad Ansari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Superior right on basis of heir 'of vendor and as an owner of estate‑‑Suit dismissed by Trial Court as withdrawn on basis of a statement to that effect made by a counsel whom plaintiff disowned to have engaged‑‑Appeal dismissed by Appellate Court as having become in fructuous on account of law laid down in case of Sardar All P L D 1988 SC 287‑‑Order passed by Appellate Court, therefore, was unexceptionable. [p. 336] A & B
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Superior right on basis of heir 'of vendor and as an owner of estate‑‑Suit dismissed by Trial Court as withdrawn on basis of a statement to that effect made by a counsel whom plaintiff disowned to have engaged‑‑Appeal dismissed by Appellate Court as having become in fructuous on account of law laid down in case of Sardar All P L D 1988 SC 287‑‑Order passed by Appellate Court, therefore, was unexceptionable. [p. 336] A & B Mian Habib Ahmad Ansari for Petitioner. A pre‑emption suit filed by the petitioner on 22‑12‑1984 with regard to agricultural land, claiming superior right as an heir of the vendor and an owner of the estate had been almost tried out and was at the last stage of hearing of arguments on 27‑1‑1988 when it came to be dismissed by the trial Court as withdrawn on the basis of a statement to that effect made by a counsel whom the plaintiff did not own as having ever been engaged by him and he preferred an appeal in the District Court wherein, however. it was conceded that the appeal had been rendered infructuous on account of the law laid down in the case of Sardar Ali etc. P L D 1988 SC 287 in furtherance of the rule declared in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 360 and the appeal was accordingly dismissed on 2‑6‑1988 by the learned District Judge.
2. The plaintiff has now come up to this Court on revision and the motivating factor seems to be his desire to have his ego satisfied upon the suit being restored by undoing the harm done to his cause by such an indiscreet act. Unfortunately, the petitioner has chosen , a wrong and unproductive remedy of revision because, if at all his stand may be correct he ought to have proceeded either under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. which contemplates, action being taken on the basis of an application made for the purpose to enable the Court which passed the decree, to set it aside on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation; or else, he may have proceeded against the concerned counsel. He, however, cannot be herein provided the desired relief because even if the suit may be restored upon ultimate acceptance of his plea, it will not be anything more than a mere futile exercise in the presence of the above‑cited law whereby claim urged in the suit has been rendered incapable of succeeding after 31‑7‑1986. . 3. . In the above view of the mater, no interference is called for' I in the order passed in the appeal below and this civil revision i ks hence dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./A‑460/L Petition dismissed.