1988 PLP 1953 (SCMR)
FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1953 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1953 (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 1953 (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 1953 (SCMR) (FAIZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Aftab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.M.Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
- Ch.Aftab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.M.Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order dated 5-3-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.881 of 1984).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit of petitioner decreed by Trial Court but same was declared to have been dismissed subsequently on application of respondent on ground that purchase price was not deposited in time--Petitioner's revision petition before Additional District Judge was returned for presentation to high Court since he came to conclusion that purchase money exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction--Petitioner challenged the order of Additional District Judge in writ petition before High Court but without success- Question, that Additional District Judge erred in law in returning revision petition solely on ground that purchase amount was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, requiring examination--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner filed a suit for pre emption against respondent No l. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise. The petitioner was required to pay Rs.55,000 as purchase price, zar‑i‑panjum, upto 2‑9‑1981. The petitioner deposited the purchase price on 2‑9‑1981 and took over the possession of the land in dispute. Subsequently, respondent No.1 moved an application, before the trial Court, alleging that the purchase price was to be deposited before 2‑9‑1981 and as this was not done, the suit stood dismissed. The learned trial Court accepted the application and by an order dated 1.2‑11‑1981 declared the suit to have been dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Gujrat. It may be mentioned that for the purpose of jurisdiction the suit had been valued at Rs.17,644.80. The learned Additional District Judge thought that as the purchase money exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction, he was not competent to hear the revision petition. Accordingly, he returned the revision petition for presentation to the petitioner challenged the order of the learned additional, Judge in the High Court in writ jurisdiction but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this court.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that the learned additional district judge erred in law in returning the revision petition solely on the ground that the purchase amount was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. This contention need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for cost in the sum of Rs.5,000. the appeal is granted security for coats in the sum of Rs.5,000.the appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission/direction to the parties to file addition document , if any within two months. M.Y.H./F-70/S Leave to appeal granted.