1989 PLP 662 (SCMR)
Syed FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHANI — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 662 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Syed FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHANI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 662 (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 662 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 662 (SCMR) (Syed FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus ABDUL GHANI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Assim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Assim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-2-88 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1156 of 1978).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit on qualification of being owner in estate--Suit dismissed by two Courts below was decreed for the first time by High Court on 16-2-1988--Validity of decree impugned--Qualification of ownership in estate not recognised by the injunctions of Islam--In view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Malik Said Kamal's case (P L D 1986 S C 360), said qualification had ceased to remain on statute book after 31st July, 1986--Decree of High Court passed after crucial date was set aside by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The relevant facts are that a plot measuring 5 marlas situate in the revenue estate of Kala Khanmbra, Tehsil and District Sialkot was purchased by the appellant vide registered sale‑deed dated 16‑5‑1970 The respondent claiming himself to be an owner in the estate filed a suit to pre-empt the aforementioned sale, which suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8‑1‑1975. Aggrieved by the said judgment an decree the respondent filed an appeal m the District Court of Sialkot which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment and decree dated 10‑6‑1978. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the two learned Courts below, the respondent filed Civil Revision No.1156 of 1967 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16‑2‑1988 and the respondent's suit was decreed in his favour on the deposit of Rs.1,100 upto 10th March, 1988. Hence this appeal, by leave of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, submits that the qualification of being owner in the estate is a qualification not recognized by the injunctions of Islam and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Secretary Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 S C 360) the said qualification has ceased to remain on the statute book after 31st July, 1986. Consequently, the pre‑emption suit which was dismissed by the two learned Courts below could not have been decreed for the first time by the learned High Court on 16‑2‑1988, on which date the qualification on the basis whereof the decree has been passed was no longer a part of the statute. Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, has no answer to this contention. The result is that this appeal is allowed; the decree of the High Court dated 16‑2‑1988 is hereby set aside, with the result that the suit that was filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) shall stand dismissed. No costs. AA./F‑91/S Appeal allowed.