Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review No. I‑P of 1978 in C. P. No. 194/P of 1975, decided on 23rd April 1979.
(Review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, of the Supreme Court judgment dated 18‑12‑1977).
Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI; r. 1 Review by Supreme Court‑Supreme Court holding land in suit measuring less than two kanals and purchased by vendee for construct ing houses to be not pre‑emptible‑Finding challenged in review on ground of vendee having difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from other co‑owners‑Challenge pertaining more to manner whereby vendee will construct houses on land having nothing to do with finding regarding non pre‑empribility of land held, not tenable and even otherwise, hardly a ground for review.‑--
M. Afzal Khan Bangash, Advocate (Peshawar) and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23rd April 1979.
‑This is a petition for review of an Order dated 18‑12‑1977 whereby Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 149/P of 1975 was dismissed by this Court. The facts of the case are given in detail in the aforesaid Order wherein it was held that the land dispute which measured less than two. kanals had been purchased by the vendee for constructing houses and as such was not pre‑emptible.
2. Learned counsel submits that the view expressed in the aforesaid Order is not correct inasmuch as the vendee will have difficulty in getting such a small area in partition from the other co‑owners. The contention i misconceived and, even otherwise, is hardly a ground to seek review on judgment because it pertains more to the manner in which the vendee will construct the houses on the land and has nothing to do with our finding regarding non‑pre‑emptibility of the sale transaction.
3. The petition has no merits and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer