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 Petition No. 145 of 1982, decided on 6th February, 1984.
(From the order dated 19‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in R.F.A. No.200 of 1981).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), ‑S.21‑‑Petitioner seeking leave to appeal before Supreme Court pending his appeal in High Court urging that admitting order of High Court that appeal was admitted "only to consider question of appellant's entitlement to compen sation for improvements alleged to have been effected by them", amounted to dismissal of his appeal in regard to his pleas other than that of compensation for improvements and that High Court had not assigned any reason for such dismissal and dismissal of appeal on those other pleas was bad in law‑‑Point raised, held, required consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Eswariah v. Rameswarayya A I I2 1940 Mad 483, Muhammad Saghir Bhatti & Sons v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1958 S C 221 and Abid Hussain v. Afsar Jehan Begum P L D 1973 S C 1 ref.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th February, 1984.
‑‑ The petitioners, who are vendees/heirs of vendees, filed Regular First Appeal in the High Court against the decree passed against them by the trial Court in a pre‑emption suit. As many as ten issues had been framed and decided in regard to the controversy between the parties, of which the findings on issues Nos. 1,2, 9 and 10 had been specifically challenged in the memorandum of appeal. However, the appeal was admitted only "to consider the question of appellants' entitlement to compensation for the improvements alleged to have been effected by them". The High Court also did not allow them any interim relief in regard to the possession of the disputed land for the reason that "the appellants have to part with the disputed land in any case".
2. Although the petitioners' appeal is pending in the High Court, learned counsel has sought leave to appeal urging that the admitting order amounted to dismissal of their appeal in regard to their pleas other than that of compensation for the improvements, that the High Court had not assigned any reason for such dismissal and that, therefore, r the dismissal of the appeal on those other pleas was bad in law. Reliance, was placed on Eswariah v. Rameswaryya A I R 1940 Mad. 483, Muhammad Saghir Bhatti & Sons v . Federation of Pakistan P L D 1958 S C 2211 and Abid Hussain v. Afsar Jehan Begum P L D 1973 S C 1.
3. The point raised requires consideration Leave to appeal is accord ingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The appeal shall be heard in the week commencing 24th March, 1984 at Rawalpindi. The stay already granted shall continue to remain in force.
M.Z.M. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer