Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: RAMZAN
1988 S C M R 1282
1988 S C M R 1282
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
C. P. S. L. A. No. 50 of 1982
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
RAMZAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
(On appeal from the judgment dated, 10‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.5289 of 1981).
C. P. S. L. A. No. 51 of 1982
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD N AWA Z and 2 others‑‑Respondents
(On appeal from the judgment dated, 10‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, ,passed in Writ Petition No.5290 of 1981).
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos.50 and 51 of 1982, decided on 11th May, 1988.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199 Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Plea of partial pre‑emption‑‑Pre‑emption decree, challenged‑‑Plea raised that respondents‑ore‑emptors could not have succeeded on account of principle and bar of partial pre emption‑‑High Court's view that findings on question of partial pre emption which went against petitioners were unexceptionable and there was no justification to interfere with them in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being in accordance with law leave to appeal refused.
Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and' Hamid Asiam Qureshi for Petitioner (in both the Petitions).
Date of hearing: 11th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These are vendees' petitions for leave to appeal and have arisen out of pre‑emption decrees granted in favour of the respondents /pre‑emptors. The High Court having dismissed the petitioners' Constitutional Petitions they have now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel contended that the respondents/pre‑emptors could not have succeeded on account of the principle and bar of partial pre‑emption. We, oh his request, having perused the relevant record, agree with the High Court that the findings on the question of partial pre‑emption, which go against the petitioners, are unexceptionable. There was no justification to interfere with them In the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. That being so, these petitions are dismissed.
M.I./M‑450/S Petitions dismissed.