1985 PLP 1464 (SCMR)
SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1464 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1464 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1464 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1464 (SCMR) (SHER AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mujeebur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1985.
- Mujeebur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 11-4-1984, passed in R.S.A. No. 185 of 1981).
Art. 185(3)--Grant of leave to appeal--Grounds for--Petitioner seeking reappraisal of evidence for setting aside High Court's finding on question of fact--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Sher Ahmad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11‑4‑1984 accepting the appeal of Muhammad Hanif, respondent, in a pre-emption case.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Sher Ahmad petitioner filed a pre emption suit against Muhammad Hanif respondent. The suit was decreed, but the price of the suit land was fixed by the learned trial Court as Rs.30,
000. The petitioner felt that the price should be less than that mentioned in the sale‑deed. He, therefore, filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and reduced the price to Rs.13,
854. The other side (Muhammad Hanif defendant respondent) filed an R.S.A. before the High Court which accepted the appeal and again increased the price of the suit‑land to Rs.30,000, holding that the sale price mentioned in the sale‑deed was genuine and had been paid by Muhammad Hanif vendee/ respondent as price of the land in question. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The only contention urged on his behalf is that the price of the suit‑land has been wrongly determined by the learned High Court. We are afraid this is a question of fact and the petitioner's contention amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence for setting aside the High Court's finding on a question of fact. We do not consider this proper to grant leave for that purpose. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. M.I Leave refused.