Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDAR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHANHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1395
1988 S C M R 1395
Preaent: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SARDAR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.961 of 1983, decided on 22nd May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.1672‑J of 1982).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Limitation‑‑Question that pre‑emption suit filed against the petitioner was time‑barred if the period of limitation was reckoned from the date of possession was duly noted by High Court and finding of fact regarding physical possession under sale, was rendered against the petitioner‑‑Supreme Court declined interference.
Mirza A. Anwar Beg, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehmood Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. The main point raised by the learned counsel, besides the question of allegedly deficient court‑‑fee, is that the pre‑emption suit filed against the petitioner was time‑barred if the period of limitation is reckoned from the date of the possession. This point was duly noted by the High Court and finding of fact, regarding physical possession under the sale, was rendered against the petitioner The contention of the learned counsel that the learned Courts below did not pay any attention to this aspect of the case is not supported by the contents of the impugned Judgment.
3. We have not been able to find any force in the plea of the learned counsel regarding limitation. The question of court‑fee now stands resolved by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan (P L D 1984 S C 289) which goes against the petitioner. Leave to appeal. accordingly, is refused.
M.B.A./S‑155/S Leave refused.