Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM FARID SHAH VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA
1988 S C M R 1225
1988 S C M R 1225
Present: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
C. P. S. L. A. No.232 of 1981
GHULAM FARID SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 6 others-Respondents
(On appeal from the Order dated 25‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Intra‑Court Appeals Nos.588 and 589 of 1980) .
C . P. S. L. A . No. 303 of 1981
MEHR SHAH‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 6 others Respondents
(On appeal from the Order dated 25‑1‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Intra‑Court Appeal No.589 of 1980.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.232 and 308 of 1981, decided on 2nd May, 1988.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Pre emption decree‑‑ Execution of‑‑High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑High Court determining manner in which a pre‑emption decree was to be executed‑‑Petitioners claiming that errors had been committed in observing directions of High Court‑‑Writ petition dismissed on ground that no error of law was involved and that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction‑‑Order affirmed in Intra‑Court Appeal‑‑Held, there was no justification for interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
A.Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from Judgment dated 12‑10‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two Intra‑Court Appeals arising out of pre‑emption matters filed by the petitioners‑side, were dismissed.
2. The petitioners are vendees. The respondents/ pre‑emptors‑side have succeeded. The dispute that now remains, has arisen out of consolidation proceedings; as a result of which, the identity of the suit land was changed. In an earlier round, the High Court determined the manner in which the pre‑emption decree was to be satisfied. After the needful had been done in pursuance of the direction of the High Court, the petitioners‑side again came before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction claiming that some errors had been committed in observing the directions of the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that no error of law was involved and that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. This order having been affirmed on an Intra‑Court Appeal, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel. He has not been able to establish any error on account of which interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, would have been justified. For the same reasons, we do not find any justification for interference. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused in both these petitions.
M.I. /G‑90/S Petitions dismissed.