Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 389 of 1985, decided on 19th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Right of pre‑emption ‑‑Courts below reaching at a finding of fact that respondent was a tenant of suit land and this finding rooted in evidence‑‑Order of High Court refusing to interfere with finding in constitutional jurisdiction, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave refused.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 1985.
‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court dismissing the Constitution petition filed by the petitioners by which they sought to challenge the pre‑emption decree dated 20th August, 1977 passed by Collector, Sargodha in favour of respondent 1. Petitioners' plea in support of the petition before the High Court as well as the petition before us is that respondent not being the tenant of the suit‑land, was not entitled to claim the right of pre‑emption.
After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record before us, we find that it has been held as a finding of fact not only by the trial Court, but also at various stages thereafter that the respondent was a tenant. This finding is rooted in evidence, and the learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, very rightly refused to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction. No exception can be taken against the judgment of the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer