1989SCMR1661 (PLP)
AZIZ AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1661 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZ AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1661 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1661 (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: 1989SCMR1661 (PLP) (AZIZ AHMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Para.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Pre emptor instead of taking bargain forthwith (regarding which another agreement teas also allegedly drawn) sought time from the vendor for he had no money at that time‑‑Prima facie decision in this behalf by the Additional Commissioner to the effect that bar of estoppels would apply to the pre‑emptor's case was correct‑ Leave to appeal was thus granted to examine whether Board of Revenue was right in upsetting that decision in its provisional jurisdiction and that whether High Court could not have set aside the judgment of Member, Board of Revenue in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter calls in question the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court.
2. There is no more dispute about the weaker right of the petitioner as compared to the respondent ‑pre‑emptor's side.
3. The petitioner, in person, sought adjournment on account of absence of. his counsel. The same having been refused, we have examined the case as was to be made out from the petitioner's side before the lower forum and before the High Court. The controversy now revolves around the issue whether the transaction having come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, he was not estopped by his conduct when he instead of taking the bargain forthwith (regarding which another agreement was also allegedly drawn), sought time from the vendor because ho had no money with him.
4. Prima facie, the decision in this behalf by the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the bar of estopped will apply to the pre‑emptor's case was correct; and, it needs to be examined whether the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was right in upsetting that decision in his revisional jurisdiction. It also needs to be examined whether the High Court could not have set aside the judgment of the Member, Board of Revenue, in its Constitutional jurisdiction, Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted, Security Rs.5,000 The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. M.A.K./A‑537/S Leave granted.