1988 PLP 1373(1) (SCMR)
SARDAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1373(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1373(1) (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 1373(1) (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 1373(1) (SCMR) (SARDAR BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1988.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 12-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in, C.R. No.1835/D of 1982/LHR). --S.21--Suit for pre-emption--Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of pre-emptor but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of vendee on the ground that the suit was benami for the benefit of husband of pre-emptor--Finding of fact regarding benami litigation by two Courts below--Supreme. Court declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor, whose suit was decreed by trial Court but the appellate Court accepted the respondents /vendee's appeal on the ground that the petitioner's suit was Benami for the benefit of her husband. The petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed, she has now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel addressed his arguments on question of findings of fact reached by the two learned Courts below who have rendered decisions against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no justification for interference with the findings of fact regarding Benami litigation. Leave to appeal is, accordingly refused and the petition is dismissed. , M. B. A. /S.152/S Petition dismissed.