Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL KARIM VS Respondent: ALI GAUHAR
1988 S C M R 1552
1988 S C M R 1552
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL KARIM and another‑‑Petitioner
versus
ALI GAUHAR‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.435 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1988
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑4‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 364‑D of 1985).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Concurrent findings on questions of fact‑‑Interference with‑ Petitioner failing to establish plea of waiver‑‑Witnesses produced not relied upon‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings by three Courts on questions of fact and refused leave to appeal.
Siddique Khan's Case P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
JUDMGENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the vendee's side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
Learned counsel did not press the point with regard to the court‑fee because the same now stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C 289. He, however, vehemently argued that the issue relating to waiver should have been decided against the respondent‑pre‑emptor.
It is admitted by the learned counsel that the evidence on this issue from both the sides was oral. The petitioner, no doubt, produced witnesses so as to establish this plea but they have not been relied upon. All the three Courts having held against the petitioner on questions of fact, we do not consider it a fit case for interference on the question raised by the learned counsel. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
M.I. /A‑257/S Petition dismissed.