1989 PLP 1424 (SCMR)
SAHIB DIN and others Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1424 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SAHIB DIN and others Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1424 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1424 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1424 (SCMR) (SAHIB DIN and others Petitioners Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 6‑5‑1984 in Civil Revision No.184/D of 1981) . ‑‑‑Para.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine, inter alia whether relevant provisions of M.L.R. 64 including those relating to the jurisdiction and bar of the certain alienations had rightly been interpreted by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sough by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration regarding bar of alienation under M.L.R. 64 against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents' Civil Revision. It is not necessary to give the details of the alienations in question. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we consider it a fit case to examine whether the relevant provisions of M.L.R. 64 ‑including those relating to the jurisdiction and the bar of certain alienations (Paragraph 25) have rightly been interpreted by the High Court. This and also the other points raised in this petition would require examination. 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 additional documents. Status quo to continue. M.B.A./S‑283/S Leave granted.