1988 PLP 1572 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KHIZER HAYAT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1572 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Right of pre emption-- Waiver-- Participation in a private auction--Effect of- Petitioner-vendees' plea of waiver not entertained--Finding that participation of respondents in a private auction could not deprive a pre-emptor from asserting right of pre-emption, affirmed--Leave to appeal refused.--Waiver. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KHIZER HAYAT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1572 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1572 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Right of pre emption-- Waiver-- Participation in a private auction--Effect of- Petitioner-vendees' plea of waiver not entertained--Finding that participation of respondents in a private auction could not deprive a pre-emptor from asserting right of pre-emption, affirmed--Leave to appeal refused.--Waiver. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1572 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus KHIZER HAYAT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.A.Waheed Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
- Ch.A.Waheed Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17-4-1985 in R. S . A . No.110 of 1985).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Right of pre emption-- Waiver-- Participation in a private auction--Effect of- Petitioner-vendees' plea of waiver not entertained--Finding that participation of respondents in a private auction could not deprive a pre-emptor from asserting right of pre-emption, affirmed--Leave to appeal refused.--[Waiver]. Baqri v. Salehon and 3 others P L D 1972.5 C 133 rel.
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Right of pre emption--Vendees' superior right on basis of tenancy--Strangers joining transaction of purchase--Effect of--Vendees joining strangers in an indivisible transaction of purchase lost defence of superior right on basis of tenancy--Impugned judgment not suffering from any infirmity--No ground for interference existed--Leave to appeal refused. Mangtha Khan v. Mst.Hamida Begum P L D 1981 S C 51 distinguished. Mir Ahmad Khan v. Gul Ayub Khan P L D 1985 Pesh. 3; Fazal Dad v. Muhammad Azam 1980 C L' C 1817 and Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C 140 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter., Learned counsel has raised the two‑fold contentions: (i) relating to waiver; and (ii) relating to superior right of the petitioners‑vendees on the basis of tenancy. On the first point, the petitioners have lost on the finding that participation of the respondents' side in a private auction could not deprive a pre‑emptor from asserting right of pre‑emption. After some arguments on this question, the learned counsel did not press the point any further when the judgment of this Court in Baqri v. Salehon and three others P L D 1972 S C 133 was brought to his notice. On the second point while admitting that the petitioners would lose defence of tenancy if they had joined strangers in the transaction of purchase, learned counsel, nevertheless, argued that some of the observations made in Mangtha Khan v . Mst. Hamida Begum P L D 1981 S C 51 support his case. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the judgment relied upon is entirely distinguishable. The case of the petitioners falls within the category of those cases where transaction by vendees is indivisible. The learned counsel later on stated that the .following judgments go against him on this point‑‑Mir Ahmad Khan v. Gul Ayub Khan P L D 1985 Pesh. 3, Fazal Dad v. Muhammad Azam 1980 C L C 1817 and Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C
140. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.I. /G‑109/S Petition dismissed.