| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 1216 1996 SLD 1216 1996 SCMR 808 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1993, decision dated: 5-03-1996
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1993, decision dated: 5-03-1996
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ABDUL RASHID
VS
BASHIRAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Suit for pre-emption ---Estoppel against pre-emptor--Presence of plaintiff at the time when bargain was struck was not enough to draw inference of acquiescence in sale---Trial Court as also Appellate, Court had correctly drawn inference on basis of evidence on record that by mere presence of plaintiff at the time of bargain no estoppel/waiver was constituted---High Court, therefore, erred in upsetting concurrent findings of fact by misreading of evidence. Jam Pari v. Muhammad Abdullah 1992 SCMR 786; Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38; Muhammad Shafi and another v. Sher Ali 1970 SCMR 510 and Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 403 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---S. 100---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Second appeal on question of fact---Competency---Second appeal does not lie on the ground of an error on question of fact---Second appeal only lies on the ground of error of law; or, on error in the procedure which might have affected decision of case on merits---Where decision rendered by two Courts below was based on judicial consideration of evidence adduced in the case and same was not shown to be either based on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence or further that the evidence had in any way, been misread by them, High Court had wrongly interfered with concurrent findings of fact simply because some other view point could also be taken---Judgment and decree of High Court in second appeal was set aside by Supreme Court and that of Appellate Court was restored in circumstances. Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others PLD 1969 SC 617; Pathana v. Mst. Wasai PLD 1965 SC 134; Khera Din v. Fazal Din 1968 SCMR 1027 and Azhar Saleem v. Muhammad Anwar Khan 1974 SCMR 484 rel. A.R Shaukaf Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing; 5th March, 1996. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This appeal under Article 185 (2)(e) of the Constitution of…
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