1988 PLP 1074 (SCMR)
DILAWAR and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1074 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | DILAWAR and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1074 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1074 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal 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 1074 (SCMR) (DILAWAR and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A: Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order dated 4‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Regular Second Appeal No.156 of 1978). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑ ‑Vendees petitioners not having challenged finding of Trial Court on question of sinker before Additional District Judge or even before High Court, could not be allowed to resurrect the controversy at leave to appeal stage‑‑Decision of High Court that the suit was within time, finding support from judgment of Supreme Court in PLD‑1984 SC 289‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without any merit dismissed. Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan P L D 1984 S C. 289 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J This petition arises out of a pre‑emption suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge who held that as the deficiency in the court‑fee had been made after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing the suit, it was barred by time. In second appeal, .the High Court set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and restored that of the trial Court: The petitioners who are the vendees seek leave to appeal from the judgment of 'the High Court..
2. In this petition two grounds have been taken. Firstly, it is urged that the trial Court erred in applying the principle of sinker while holding that the pre‑emptor had a superior right in relation to the petitioners. Secondly, it is contended that the High Court was not right in holding that the suit of the pre‑emptor was within time. As regards the first ground, it may be mentioned that the petitioners did not challenge the finding of the trial Court on the question of sinker before the Additional District Judge or even before the High Court. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to let them resurrect this controversy at this stage. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the decision of the High Court finds support from a judgment of this Court reported as Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan P L D 1984 S C 289: This petition is thus without any merit and is hereby dismissed. S.Q. /D‑18/S Petition dismissed: