1988 PLP 1237 (SCMR)
KAREEM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1237 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KAREEM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1237 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1237 (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: 1988 PLP 1237 (SCMR) (KAREEM BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 302 of 1981).
- Zafar Yasin, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. 302 of 1981).
- Sh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 808 of 1981).
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. 808 of 1981).
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑ Plaintiff petitioner contended that two suits were filed prior to 31‑7‑1986 when decision of Supreme Court reported in PLD 1986 SC 360 became effective yet no decree was passed in favour of petitioners so far at any stage‑‑No fresh decree, held, could now be passed in favour of petitioners‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Said Kamal Shah's case P L D 1986 S C 360 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs in two separate pre‑emption matters. The main question involved therein is common. Therefore they are being disposed of together.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have stated that both the suits were filed prior to 31st of July, 19F6 when the decision of this Court in the case of Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 SC 3C0) became effective; yet, no decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners so far at any stage. That being so, no fresh decree can now be passed in the circumstances, in favour of the petitioners. It has been so held in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and ethers (P L D 1988 S C 287). These petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. M.Y.H./K‑52/S Petitions dismissed.