Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TALIB HUSSAIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SHAFI
1988 S C M R 1488
1988 S C M R 1488
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
TALIB HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.511 of 1984, decided on 25th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12‑3‑84 in C.R. 415 of 1984).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Default in payment of court‑fee within period of limitation‑‑Compensation for improvements‑ Leave to appeal sought by vendee against dismissal of his revision petition‑‑Plea that respondent not having paid requisite court‑fee within period of limitation his suit was time‑barred, repelled‑‑Matter stood concluded by Supreme Court judgment reported as P L D 1984 S C 289‑‑Plea of allowing of compensation for improvements‑‑No point having been raised on such plea which could be noticed, leave to appeal refused.
Siddique Khan's case P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The learned counsel for the petitioner‑ vend eee in a pre‑emption matter seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court, has pressed the following two points in support of this petition‑
(i) that the respondent had not paid the requisite court‑fee within the period of limitation. Therefore, his suit was time‑barred;
(ii) that the petitioner has not been allowed compensation for improvements. ,
The first question raised by the learned counsel regarding Court fee 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 petitioner. Regarding second question, the learned counsel has not been able to raise any point which could be noticed by this Court for the grant of leave to appeal which accordingly is refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.I. /T‑25/8 Petition dismissed.