1989 PLP 1480 (SCMR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD and 3 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1480 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD and 3 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1480 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1480 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1480 (SCMR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD and another Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MURAD and 3 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- MAslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988.
- MrAbdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has made a grievance of the fact that the petitioners had not received an adequate notice of the hearing of Revisions itself. On merits it is stated that an obvious error has taken place as the sale which was subjected to pre‑emption claim of the petitioners was, as the sale‑deed shows, not of a specific Khasra A Number but of a share in the Khata. In view of the nature of the sale, there was no occasion to go behind the sale for the benefit of the vendee and to the detriment of the pre‑emptors and that too at the Revisional stage.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 10‑10‑1984 passed in Civil Revision Petitions Nos.155/D of 1984 and 156/1) S.13‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.185(3)‑‑Rival pre‑emptors succeeded on the ground that they were co‑sharers of the Khatas from which sale was made‑‑Such finding was not interfered with by impugned order but going behind the sale, High Court found that the vendor was allottee of specific Khasra numbers and not a co‑sharer and what was sold was not a share in Khata but specific Khasra numbers‑‑Leave to appeal, was granted to examine the grievance that petitioners had not received an adequate notice of hearing of revision itself; that an obvious error had taken place as the sale which was subjected to pre‑emption claim of the petitioners was, as the sale‑deed showed, not a specific Khasra number. but of a share in the Khata and in view of the nature of the sale, there was no occasion to go behind the sale for the benefit of the vendee and to the detriment of the pre‑jemptors and that too at revisional stage. Nemo for Respon eats Nos.2 and 3 (in C.P.1136/84 and Nos.2 to 4 in C.P.1137/84).
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). MAslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respon eats Nos.2 and 3 (in C.P.1136/84 and Nos.2 to 4 in C.P.1137/84). Date of hearing: 13th August, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑Two sets of rival pre‑emptors have separately filed petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 10‑10‑1984 whereby accepting the Revision Petitions, the judgments of the Courts below were set aside. The rival pre‑emptors succeeded on the ground that they were co-sharers of the Khatas from which sale was made. This fact was not interfered with by the impugned order but going behind the sale, the learned Judge held that the vendor was allottee of specific Khasara Numbers and not a co‑sharer and what was sold was not a share in the Khata but specific Khasara Numbers. MrAbdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has made a grievance of the fact that the petitioners had not received an adequate notice of the hearing of Revisions itself. On merits it is stated that an obvious error has taken place as the sale which was subjected to pre‑emption claim of the petitioners was, as the sale‑deed shows, not of a specific Khasra A Number but of a share in the Khata. In view of the nature of the sale, there was no occasion to go behind the sale for the benefit of the vendee and to the detriment of the pre‑emptors and that too at the Revisional stage. A case for leave to appeal is made out. Leave to appeal is granted. Security of Rs.5,000 in each case. M.B.A./N‑157/S. Leave granted.