SCMR 1984

1984 PLP 1529 (SCMR)

RAFI‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 61 of 1977, decided on 27th May, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1984 PLP 1529 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Parties RAFI‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1529 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1529 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1529 (SCMR) (RAFI‑UD‑DIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SALEEMA BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 27th May, 1984.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19‑1‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No. 31 of 1977). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption .Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether provisions of S.15 of Pre‑emption Act had been rightly construed by Courts below.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J‑‑ The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, relied upon the provisions of section 15 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act which details the persons, in whom right of pre‑emption vests in respect of sale of the agricultural and village immovable property and submits that this provision as not been rightly construed by the Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we consider that there is some force in this submission. We would, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security for costs Rs.1,

000. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any. The interim stay granted on 4-2-1977 shall remain operative in the meanwhile. S.Q. Leave granted