1988 PLP 1652 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioner Versus NIAZ ALI and others — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1652 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioner Versus NIAZ ALI and others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1652 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1652 (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 1652 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others — Petitioner Versus NIAZ ALI and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate- on-Record for petitioners (in C.P. No.234 of 1985).
- Masood Javaid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.392 of 1985).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.Ps.Nos. 234 and 392 of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
- Ch.Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for petitioners (in C.P. No.234 of 1985).
- Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mohammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitions (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
- Masood Javaid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.392 of 1985).
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
Headnotes / Summary
S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Suit for pre-emption--No decree having been passed in favour of any of pre-emptors before 31-7-1986, the same cannot now be passed in their favour in view of P L D 1988 S C 287--Petitions having become infructuous, dismissed. Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C 287 rel. Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mohammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate-on-Record for Petitions (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
Judgment & Decree
THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents Civil Petitions Nos.234, .306 and 392 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1988. ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑No decree having been passed in favour of any of pre‑emptors before 31‑7‑1986, the same cannot now be passed in their favour in view of P L D 1988 S C 287‑‑Petitions having become infructuous, dismissed. Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C 287 rel. Ch.Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for petitioners (in C.P. No.234 of 1985). Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mohammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitions (in C.P. No.306 of 1985). Masood Javaid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.392 of 1985). Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.306 of 1985). Nemo for Respondents (in C.Ps.Nos. 234 and 392 of 1988). Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988. ORDER. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by vendees in separate pre‑emption matters. Their learned counsel have stated that no decree having been passed in favour of any of the respondent/ pre‑emptors before 31‑7‑1986, the same cannot now be passed in their favour. The position taken by the learned counsel is correct and has the support of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C
287. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioners, however, may now raise the plea before the Court concerned where the matters might now be pending. M . I . / M‑500 / S Petitions dismissed.