1988 PLP 964 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 964 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 964 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 964 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah 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 964 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11‑8‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1361/ D of 1980). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Ground not urged before First Appellate Court‑‑Such ground would be deemed to have been abandoned and not allowed to be urged‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.XVI, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1,973), Art.185(3)‑ Respondents, suit for pre‑emption decreed by Trial Court‑‑Petitioner's appeal and revision failed‑‑Plea raised that petitioner was not given full opportunity to produce his witnesses before Trial Court on ground that he had filed list of witnesses belatedly‑‑Petitioner having failed to establish that this ground was urged before Appellate Court, it would be deemed to have been abandoned‑‑Such ground not being allowed to be urged before Supreme Court, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The suit filed by the respondents for pre‑emption of the land in dispute was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree preferred before the Additional District Judge failed, as also his revision in the High Court. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The only ground urged before us was that the petitioner was 'not given a full opportunity to produce his witnesses before the trial Court on the ground that he had filed the list of his witnesses belatedly. This plea was also urged before the High Court and was fully dealt with by it but was found to be of no weight and rejected. We agree with the High Court that the petitioner had failed to establish that the above ground was urged before the Appellate Court and had, therefore, to be deemed to have been abandoned. No ground for interference with the order of the High Court is made out. M.I. /A‑206/S Petition dismissed.