Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAWAB DIN VS Respondent: GHULAM FATIMA
1988 S C M R 1651
1988 S C M R 1651
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
NAWAB DIN‑‑Petitioner versus
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.172 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, dated 17‑12‑1984 in Civil Revision No.2035 of 1984).
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII,R. 11(c)‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Payment of deficient court‑fee by plain tiff‑pre‑emptor‑‑Point having concluded by Supreme Court judgment reported as P L D 1984 S C 289 which was against petitioner, leave to appeal refused.
Siddique Khan's case P L D 1984 S C 289rel.
(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑ Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Bar of waiver against pre‑emptor‑‑Matter having been concluded by findings of fact, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal.
Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing; 31st 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.
Learned counsel has raised two points in support of this petition; (i) payment of deficient court‑fee by the plain tiff/pre‑emptor; and (ii) bar of waiver against the pre‑emptor.
The first point stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan (P L D 1984 S C 289) which goes against the petitioner; and the second point, stands concluded by A the findings of fact rendered in the impugned judgments.
After hearing the learned counsel on the second point which was pressed during the arguments, we do not find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
M.I. /N‑80/S Petition dismissed.