1988 PLP 1340 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 9 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BIBI and 10 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1340 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 9 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BIBI and 10 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 1340 (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 1340 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal 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 1340 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 9 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BIBI and 10 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 11.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1988.
- C.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2, 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 11.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 30-6-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.795-D of 1981).
S.15--Pre-emption suit--Compromise--Mere fact that there was an agreement on the question of payment of the pre-emption money (which was seriously disputed by the other party) would not make it a case of consent decree on compromise
S.25--Pre-emption suit--Time for deposit of pre-emption money- Trial Court had granted stay order on account of which respondents were prevented from making the deposit of the pre-emption money within time specified by Trial Court--Appellant Court, held, was within its jurisdiction to grant further time for the deposit.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The vendees/defendants in a pre‑emption suit, have sought leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑6‑1981; whereby their civil revision was dismissed.
2. The petitioners contested the suit of the respondents/ pre‑emptors by filing a written statement of contest. The respondents' right to pre‑empt was held superior and the suit was decreed. The learned Trial Judge, however, directed them to pay the pre‑emption money alleged to have been agreed between the parties before the trial Court. The respondents filed an appeal with regard to the pre‑emption amount on the assertion and ground that they had not agreed to pay the specified amount. On appeal a stay order was issued. However, the respondents' plea with regard to the agreement was not accepted and the appeal was dismissed granting them time to pay the pre‑emption money. The petitioners challenged this order of the first appellate Court in a Revision before the High Court. The same having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel has reiterated the same argument which was advanced before the High Court from the petitioners‑side. According to them the trial Court's decree was passed in favour of the respondents as a result of compromise between the parties; therefore, their appeal was not competent and that being so, the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant further time for deposit of the pre‑emption money. We do not agree with him. It was not a case of compromise between the parties. The petitioners had contested the respondents' suit. The mere fact that there was, as alleged from the petitioners‑side, an agreement on the question of payment of the pre‑emption money (which was seriously disputed. by the respondents‑side) would not make it a case of consent decree on compromise. In any case the respondents had disputed the factum of compromise before the District Court. And lastly the said Court had granted a stay order on account of which the respondents were prevented from making the deposit of the pre‑emption money within time specified by the trial Court. That being so, the appellate Court was within its jurisdiction to grant further time for the deposit. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. M. B.A./M‑462/S Petition dismissed.