1998 PLP 490 (SCMR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 490 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Irshad Hasan Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 490 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 490 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Irshad Hasan Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 490 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 1995.
- 3. The petitioner submitted that the counsel engaged by him in the Trial Court was bona fide of the view that the requirement of Talabs was not necessary, therefore, he cannot be penalised for the act of his Advocate. We are not impressed by the submission. Admittedly, the suit was filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The requirement of Talabs having not been satisfied, the suit was rightly dismissed in view of Said Kamal v. N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1986 SC 360).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 16‑10‑1994 passed in Civil Revision No.451 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991), Ss. 13 & 35(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for pre‑emption, for want of Talabs‑‑‑Plaintiff's appeal and revision were dismissed by Appellate Court and the High Court respectively‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff's contention that counsel engaged by him in Trial Court was bona fide of view that requirement of Talabs was not necessary, therefore, plaintiff could not be penalised for acts of his counsel‑‑‑Such plea was of no consequence‑‑‑Plaintiff had admittedly, filed suit under Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913; requirement of Talabs having not been satisfied, suit was rightly dismissed on ratio of Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360)‑‑‑As for plaintiff's contention that counsel engaged by him in Trial Court was labouring under misconception regarding requirement of Talabs, there was no material on record in the form of affidavit/certificate from counsel to substantiate such plea‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Said Kamal v. N.‑W.F.P. PLD 1986 SC 360 rel. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 16-10-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief are that the suit instituted by the petitioner on 10-4-1989 for possession by pre-emption of the suit land was dismissed on 2-1-1989 for want of Talabs. Same was the fate of the appeal and the revision field by him. On the promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, petitioner sought restoration of the suit through an application section 35(2) of the said Act. It was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Islamabad vide order dated 18-'I-1993. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 10-2-1994 for want of jurisdiction. Revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 26-10-1994.
3. The petitioner submitted that the counsel engaged by him in the Trial Court was bona fide of the view that the requirement of Talabs was not necessary, therefore, he cannot be penalised for the act of his Advocate. We are not impressed by the submission. Admittedly, the suit was filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The requirement of Talabs having not been satisfied, the suit was rightly dismissed in view of Said Kamal v. N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1986 SC 360).
4. As to the contention of the petitioner that the learned counsel engaged by him in the Trial Court was labouring under a misconception regarding the requirement of Talabs, there is no material on record in the form of an affidavit/certificate from the learned counsel to substantiate this plea. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused., A.A./M-3278/S Leave refused.