Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM QADIR VS Respondent: MEHR ELAHI
1988 S C M R 1242
1988 S C M R 1242
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saoad Jan, JJ
Maulvi GHULAM QADIR and another‑Petitioners
versus
MEHR ELAHI‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.607 of 1984, decided on 15th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in R.S.A. No.346/82).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O.VII, R.11‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4 & 15‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner vendee challenged decree of Trial Court in respondent's suit for pre‑emption on account of deficiency in court‑fee and supported his petition by advancing reasons which prevailed with first Appellate Court but set aside in second appeal by High Court‑‑Judgment of Supreme Court in P L D 1984 S C 289, however, going against petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 rel.
Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees‑side in a pre‑emption matter against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby respondent's Regular Second Appeal was allowed.
2. Respondent's suit for pre‑emption was decreed, but petitioners' appeal was allowed on the ground of deficiency in court‑fee and the decree was set aside. The respondent, however, succeeded in the High Court. His R.S.A. was allowed and trial Court's decree was restored.
3. The learned counsel has tried to support his petition by advancing the reasons which prevailed with the learned First Appeal Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 goes against the petitioners. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.Y.H./G‑92/S Petition dismissed.