1989 PLP 1878 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1878 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1878 (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 1878 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1878 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court with Hasan Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh, Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Afial Haider, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1Q‑4‑1987, passed R.S.A. No. 64 of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by District Judge on 18‑3‑1987 which was affirmed by High Court on 19‑4‑1987‑‑Leave to appeal granted to further examine the effect of law declared by Supreme Court in Sardar Ali's case reported as P L D 1988 S C 287 that no decree could he passed after 31‑7‑1986 in favour of pre‑emptors. Sardar Ali's case P L D 1988 S C 287 ref.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in a pre‑emption matter, against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment. The sale of the disputed property was made on 13‑2‑1979 on which was pre‑empted by the respondents on the plea that they had already deposited a sum of Rs. 10,725 as cost of the court‑ice and shill provide the same when obtained from the Treasury. The plaintiffs/respondents obtained the stamp on 14‑2‑1980 and Filed it on 16‑2‑1980. On the objection of defendants/petitioners that failure to pay the court‑fee was contumacious the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 1(i‑12‑1984 rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Appeal of the respondents before the Addl. District Judge succeeded who vide his order dated 18‑3‑1987 set aside the order and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents on payment of Rs.200,
000. The petitioners' Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge was dismissed in limine vide judgment dated 19‑4‑1987. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The petitioners' learned counsel contended that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by the Additional District Judge on 18‑3‑1987 which was affirmed by the learned High Court on 19‑4‑1987 but under the law declared by this Court in "Sardar Ali's case reported in P L D 1988 S C 287" no new decree could be passed after 31‑7‑1986 in favour of the pre‑emptors and thus decrees passed thereafter are liable to be set aside. After considering the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we think that he has been able to make out a case for further examination of this Court. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal which is to be prepared and heard on the present record. The parties however, are permitted to file additional necessary documents, if any. Security is Rs.5,
000. MA.K/M‑906/S Leave granted.