1988 PLP 1285 (SCMR)
MASOOD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1285 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MASOOD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1285 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1285 (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 1285 (SCMR) (MASOOD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 29‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.1519/D of 1981). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.IX, R.13 & S.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ex parte decree‑‑Setting aside of‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Interference with‑ Dismissal of application for setting aside an ex parte decree affirmed in revision‑‑Controversy raised already concluded by findings of fact rendered against petitioner‑‑Not being a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendee's petition arising out of a pre‑emption matter wherein an ex parte decree passed in favour of the respondent /pre‑emptor has remained intact; as a result of the dismissal of the petitioner's Civil Revision by the High Court, affirming the dismissal of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree.
2. The learned counsel has reiterated the grounds taken in the petition for leave to appeal. ,After hearing him, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal as the controversy raised in A this Court now stands concluded by findings of fact rendered against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. M.I. /M‑441/S Petition dismissed.