Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BASHIR AHMAD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
1988 S C M R 1240
1988 S C M R 1240
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.134 of 1982, decided on 10th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the order dated 20‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.987/D of 1981).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑ Petitioner vendee contended that on account of deficiency in court‑fee, respondent pre‑emptor's plaint was liable to be dismissed‑‑Point raised by petitioner stood covered by decision of Supreme Court in P L D 1984 S C 289 which went 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.
Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 10th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition is by a vendee and arises out of a pre‑emption matter. The respondent's suit for pre‑emption having been decreed by the trial Court, the petitioner's appeal and Civil Revision were dismissed. He has sought leave to appeal on the ground that on account of deficiency in court‑fee, the respondent's plaint was liable to be rejected.
2. The point raised is covered by the decision 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 which goes against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.Y.H./B‑53/S Petition dismissed.