1988 PLP 1225 (SCMR)
GHULAM FARID SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1225 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1225 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1225 (SCMR) (GHULAM FARID SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Pre emption decree‑‑ Execution of‑‑High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑High Court determining manner in which a pre‑emption decree was to be executed‑‑Petitioners claiming that errors had been committed in observing directions of High Court‑‑Writ petition dismissed on ground that no error of law was involved and that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction‑‑Order affirmed in Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑Held, there was no justification for interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from Judgment dated 12‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Intra‑Court Appeals arising out of pre‑emption matters filed by the petitioners‑side, were dismissed.
2. The petitioners are vendees. The respondents/ pre‑emptors‑side have succeeded. The dispute that now remains, has arisen out of consolidation proceedings; as a result of which, the identity of the suit land was changed. In an earlier round, the High Court determined the manner in which the pre‑emption decree was to be satisfied. After the needful had been done in pursuance of the direction of the High Court, the petitioners‑side again came before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction claiming that some errors had been committed in observing the directions of the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that no error of law was involved and that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. This order having been affirmed on an Intra‑Court Appeal, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel. He has not been able to establish any error on account of which interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, would have been justified. For the same reasons, we do not find any justification for interference. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused in both these petitions. M.I. /G‑90/S Petitions dismissed.