Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BAGH ALI VS Respondent: ASADULLAH KHANHonorable Justice Saad Saood Jan
1988 S C M R 1392
1988 S C M R 1392
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
BAGH ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
ASADULLAH KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos. 962 and 963 of 1984, decided on 30th May, 1988.
(From the orders dated 30‑7‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos.1262‑D and 1263‑D of 1984).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Claim of respondents to superior right was based on their assertion that they were owners in the estate and their assertion in this regard was not disputed by the petitioners but it was claimed on their behalf that they too were owners in the estate‑‑High Court as well as District Judge and the Trial Court rejected claim of petitioner‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of these Courts.
Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
Jariullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal .Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents (in both Petitions).
Date of hearing: 30th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In these two petitions for special leave to appeal the two suits for pre‑emption of the respondents were decreed by the Trial Court. Its judgments and decrees were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and in revisional jurisdiction the High Court declined to interfere with the decisions of the subordinate Courts.
2. The claim of the respondents to superior right was based on their assertion that they were owners in the estate. Their assertion in this regard was not disputed by the petitioners but it was claimed on their behalf that they too were owners in the estate. The High Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge and the Trial Court rejected their claim and we see no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three Courts. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A. /B‑59/ S Petitions dismissed.