P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1078 (PLP)
AMIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DAD and 19 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1078 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Abdul Shakurul Salam, |
| Parties | AMIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DAD and 19 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1078 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1078 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Abdul Shakurul Salam,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1990 Supreme Court 1078 (PLP) (AMIR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DAD and 19 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- CA. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Aamer Raza A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12‑4‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular Second Appeal No.52 of 1983). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was sought to challenge the concession made by counsel for the petitioner in the High Court on the ground that the counsel made the concession on the point of law and the petitioner was within his right to challenge the same and urge the legal point available to him before the Supreme Court‑‑‑ ‑Held even if the concession on a point of law would not, depending upon the law involved, bind the party, it would not be necessary that leave to appeal had to be granted in every such case as grant of (cave would depend upon the circumstances of each case because grant of (cave to appeal itself fell within the highly discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal by a plaintiff in a pre‑emption suit is directed against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner's suit was dismissed but on his appeal he was granted pre‑emption decree through compromise. During the hearing of respondents' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court learned counsel for the petitioner appearing at that stage agreed that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree for pre‑emption in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the respondents' Appeal was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now sought permission to challenge the concession made by the petitioner's counsel in the High Court on the ground that he made this concession on the point of law. Therefore, the petitioner is within his right to challenge the same and urge the legal point available to him before this Court. A complicated question is sought to be avoided by too much of simplification. The challenge in this petition is to the order of the High Court. The first question arises: whether, the High Court has committed any error which this Court through leave to appeal considers necessary to be corrected. Admittedly the High Court did not commit any error, therefore, prima facie, there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. The main purpose for grant of leave to appeal is to correct the error committed by the High Court. It is not satisfied in this case. Thus even if the concession on a point of law may not, depending upon the law involved, bind the party, it would not be necessary that leave to appeal has to be granted in every B such case. It will depend upon the circumstances of each case because grant of leave to appeal itself falls within the highly discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. In the peculiar facts of this case, if leave to appeal is granted the parties who will suffer embarrassment as well as hardship are in addition to (and in a way other than) the original vendee. He having surrendered the land under the Land Reforms Regulation, the next party involved would be the Land Commission. Not only this the land has already changed hands and has been transferred to tenants. They would also be directly involved and prejudiced. Accordingly, for all the aforestated reasons leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A./A‑804/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.