1989 PLP 1039 (MLD)
MALIK MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1039 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, |
| Parties | MALIK MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1039 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1039 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1039 (MLD) (MALIK MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Hussain Amin Lodhi for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 20‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Issue of waiver, was an issue of fact and concurrent findings of Courts below on that issue not suffering from misreading/non‑reading of evidence, held, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Hussain Amin Lodhi for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1989. Through this Constitution Petition Malik Muhammad petitioner wants this Court to declare judgment and decree dated 9‑5‑1985 of Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No.2, dated 12‑2‑1984 of Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, respondent No.3 and dated 14‑1‑1980 of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalpur, respondent No.4, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that respondent No.l had filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption on the basis of being tenant against Malik Muhammad petitioner. The suit was resisted, issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and trial Court/A C. decreed the suit on 14‑1‑1980. The appeal filed by Malik Muhammad petitioner against this judgment and decree failed on 12‑2‑1984. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision before.
3. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned A.C./Collector, Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue on issue of waiver.
4. After hearing the learned counsel I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that issue of waiver was/is an issue of fact. The learned A.C. Additional Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue have concurrently found this issue against the petitioner. Their findings on this issue do not suffer from misreading/non‑reading of evidence. I also do not desire to interfere, exercise of the Constitutional powers of this Court, with the appreciation of the evidence by them. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed, in limine. H.B.T./M‑1308/L Petition dismissed.