Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NUR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: MANZOOR HUSSAIN
1988 S C M R 1213
1988 S C M R 1213
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
NUR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
Malik MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition Special Leave to Appeal No.203 of 1981, decided on 2nd May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.526 of 1977).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑S.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Interference with pre‑emption suit‑ Superiority of right to pre‑empt‑‑Leave to appeal sought against order passed in revisional jurisdiction‑‑Points raised relating to finding of fact and no justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Aftab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter against judgment, dated 12‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his civil revision, was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel has raised two points; one that the land obtained by the respondent/pre‑emptor in exchange was in fact not prior to the sale of the suit land in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent /pre‑emptor had no superior right cf pre‑emption through exchange of land. The finding of fact against the petitioner is to the effect that the exchange in favour of the respondent on the basis of which he acquired right of pre‑emption, was prior in time than the sale of the suit land in favour of the petitioner. No justification has been made out for interference with this finding of fact.
The learned counsel then contended that the area obtained by the respondent through exchange was only few marlas and that also was a built upon Ehata. It was not agricultural land, therefore, he could not have claimed the superior right of pre‑emption on the basis of the ownership through exchange. In this behalf the findings of fact against the petitioner is that the land acquired by the respondent in exchange was agricultural land. This finding does not merit interference by this Court on the ground submitted by the learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel also raised the question of the price of land paid by him and the pre‑emption money determined by the Courts below, that also stands concluded by findings of fact. There is no force in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
M.I. /N‑70/S Petition dismissed.