| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 1665 1987 SLD 1665 1987 SCMR 891 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 828 of 1981, decided on 2nd February, 1987. (From the of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, dated 2-3-1981 in Regular Second Appeal No. 104 of 1968).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, MIAN BURHANUDDIN MIAN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 828 of 1981, decided on 2nd February, 1987. (From the of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, dated 2-3-1981 in Regular Second Appeal No. 104 of 1968).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, MIAN BURHANUDDIN MIAN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.
BAHADUR and another--Petitioners
VS
SALEH MUHAMMAD--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- --S. 21--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.100--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Respondent's suit for pre-emption dismissed by Trial Court and decreed in appeal on basis of concession made by petitioners' counsel that respondent was an owner in estate--Same position was confirmed in petitioners' second appeal--Plea that Second Appellate Court should not have accepted petitioners' counsel's admission on facts as against findings of fact reached by Trial Court on consideration of documentary evidence, repelled--Question raised relating to findings of fact and there being no material on record to show that petitioners' counsel did not make admission of facts with full responsibility, same and one of petitioners' admission held, was rightly relied upon by Appellate Court--There being no jurisdiction for interference, leave to appeal refused. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal against , dated 2-3-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' /vendees' Second Appeal arising out of a pre-emotion decree passed in favour of the respondent, was dismissed. 2. The respondent's suit for pre-emotion on the ground that he was owner in the estate while the petitioners/ vendees had no such qualification, was dismissed by the trial Court. Respondent's appeal before the High Court, however, succeeded on a concession made by the petitioners' counsel that the respondent was an owner in the estate. Same position having been confirmed by the High Court on petitioners' second appeal, they have now sought leave to appeal. 3. Learned…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492