Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PATHANA VS Respondent: ABDUL AZIZHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1370
1988 S C M R 1370
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
PATHANA‑‑Petitioner
versus
ABDUL AZIZ and 15 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1180 of 1983, decided on 21st May, 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 6‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in C.R.No.199 of 1982).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Questions involved were deficiency in court‑fee; right of pre-emption and partial pre‑emption‑‑Question as to deficient court‑fee had been resolved in pre‑emptor's favour by the judgment of Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case PLD 1984 SC 289; Findings of facts reached by Courts below on the question of right of pre‑emption and partial pre‑emption were concurrent and none of the questions raised by petitioner was such which could justify the interference by Supreme Court‑‑Petition dismissed.
Ch.Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑ on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Malik A.R.Irshad, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor. He succeeded in obtaining a pre‑emption decree before the trial Court. Appeal of ‑the respondents/vendees was, however, accepted. The petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. One of the questions involved was of deficient court‑fee which, of course, now stands resolved in petitioner's favour by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan PLD 1984 SC 289. The decisions by the two learned Courts below on the other questions involved: namely, the right of pre‑emption, and partial pre‑emption are against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel, when questioned as to whether there is any point of law or interpretation of law or the application of any principle of law, repeated again and again that the decisions by the learned Courts below are not in accordance with the evidence on record. After hearing him, we are satisfied that none of the questions raised by the learned counsel is such so as to justify the interference by this Court in the findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./P‑46/S Leave refused.