Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WALIDAD VS Respondent: AMIR
1988 S C M R 1521
1988 S C M R 1521
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
WALIDAD and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
AMIR‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No. 289 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 27‑1‑1985 in R.S.A. No. 124 of 1984).
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII,R.11(c)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑ Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑Effect on limitation‑‑Plea that pre‑emptor having paid deficient court‑fee, his suit became time‑barred, repelled‑‑Question stands concluded by judgment reported as P L D 1984 S C 289‑‑ Leave to appeal refused. Siddique Khan's case P L D 1984 S C 289 rel. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑ Concurrent finding of fact ‑Interference with‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑Plea that respondent's suit suffered from bar of waiver, repelled because matter stood concluded by findings of fact in two judgments of appeal Courts‑‑No justification for interference on question of fact having been shown, leave to appeal refused. . Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988. JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has beep sought by the vendees in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the. High Court. Learned counsel has raised two points in support of the petition; (i) that the respondent/ pre‑emptor initially paid deficient court‑fee and the suit thus became time barred; and (ii), that the respondent's suit suffered from the bar of waiver. The first question 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 petitioners. The second question stands concluded by the findings of fact in the two judgments of the appeal Courts. Reliance of the learned counsel on so‑called admission of the respondent that there were two transactions of sale and that he was a party to one of those transactions is not of much help to the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel on this point we do not find any justification for interference on this question of fact. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.I. /W‑30/S Petition dismissed.