1989 PLP 166 (CLC)
ALLAH DITTA and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 166 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 166 (CLC)?
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 166 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 166 (CLC) (ALLAH DITTA and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners. Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din for Respondent Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption decree passed after 31‑7‑1986 on ground of pre‑emptor being co‑owner in estate‑‑Legality of‑‑No decree could be passed in favour of pre‑emptor on ground of being owner on estate after 31‑7‑1986 as per law laid down by Supreme Court reported in P L D 1988 SC 701‑‑Such decree passed after specified date was set aside by High Court. Ghulam Qadir vNawab Din P L D 1988 SC 701 fol.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Qadir vNawab Din P L D 1988 SC 701 fol. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners. Khadim Mohy‑ud‑Din for Respondent Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988. In this revision petition judgment and decree dated 20‑12‑1987 passed by the learned trial Court in ‑ favour of the respondent for possession of land through pre‑emption on the ground that he was co‑owner of the land, affirmed in appeal, by the learned lower appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 30‑3‑1988 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners has been assailed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that according to judgment reported as Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din P L D 1988 SC 701, no decree in favour of the respondent could be passed after 31‑7‑1986. According to the learned counsel there were no 'talabs' made in accordance with the Islamic injunction. He also argued that at no stage of the proceedings in the suit decree was passed in favour of the respondent before 31‑7‑1986.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent candidly conceded that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be defended. He conceded that according to law laid down by the Supreme Court the impugned ,judgments and decrees are not maintainable.
4. The Courts below in passing the decree in favour of the respondent in the suit filed by him seeking superior right of pre‑emption on the ground of being co‑owner have exercised e jurisdiction not vested in them under the law according to law laid down by the Supreme Court in the reported judgment mentioned above. The revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. A . A . / A‑455/L Revision accepted