P L D 1996 Peshawar 28 (PLP)
GHULAM SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1996 Peshawar 28 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Peshawar 28 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Peshawar 28 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Peshawar 28 (PLP) (GHULAM SHABBIR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- 3. I have heard Mr. Rustani Khan Kundi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13, 31 & 24
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O. VII, R.11
Earlier suit for pre-emption was dismissed for plaintiff's failure to deposit pre-emption amount before specified date-- Subsequent suit for pre-emption on same grounds, in respect of same land and between the same parties
Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C. and plaintiff was non-suited
Plaintiff's appeal against rejection of his plaint was dismissed
Plaintiff would make Talb-i-Khasumat i.e. enforcement of right of pre-emption, only once and in absence of any definite/specific provision allowing second Talb-i-Khasumat (even if limitation prescribed under S.31 of the Act permitted) such right could not be imported into it
Failure to deposit 1/3rd amount in cash and l/3rd as Bank guarantee would entail dismissal of suit and has the effect of barring fresh suit
Dismissal of suit under S.24 of the Act finally determined rights of parties albeit, subject of course to decision in appeal or revision
Courts below having rightly rejected plaint of pre-emption suit, no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction of High Court, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Rustam Khan Kundi for the Petitioner. The petitioner/plaintiff had instituted a suit for the possession of land through pre-emption in the first instance, on 28-7-1994, in the Court of Civil Judge-I, D.I. Khan. The trial Court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the pre-emption amount before 8-9-1994. Since the petitioner/plaintiff failed to deposit the pre-emption amount, therefore, his Suit (No.453/1 of 1994 (Ghulam Shabbir. v. Muhammad Khan etc.) was dismissed by the Civil Judge-I, D.I. Khan on 8-9-1994. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted another suit, on the same ground, which was contested by the respondents/defendants on various grounds legal as well as factual. This time the Senior Civil Judge, Tank Camp at D.I. Khan vide his order dated 20-7-1995 rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C. and as such the petitioner was non-suited.
2. Not satisfied with the said order of the Senior Civil Judge, the petitioner assailed his findings before the District Judge, Tank Camp at D.I. Khan who vide his judgment/decree dated 10-9-1995 dismissed the appeal in limine. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Rustani Khan Kundi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
4. Needless to mention that section 13 of the N.W.F.P, Pre-emption Act, 1987 governs the whole scheme of new pre-emption law which has been brought in conformity with the Injunction of Islam, and Sunnah, in obedience to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered in Said Kamal's case. According to which the right of pre-emption is extinguished if the pre-emptor does not make the three Talbs, i.e., Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talib-i-Ishhad and Talb-i-Khusumat, the latter Talb being the enforcement of the right of pre emption through Court.
5. A bare reading thereof makes it amply clear that the plaintiff-pre emptor can make Talb-i-Khusumat i.e., enforcement of right of pre-emption, only once and in the absence of any definite/specific provision allowing a second Talb-i-Khusumat, if the limitation prescribed under section 31 of the Act permits, this right cannot be imported into it. The substitution of the rejection of the plaint in the Repealed Act through dismissal of the suit in the new Act is suggestive of the fact that the failure to deposit the amount of lord in cash and 2/3rd as bank guarantee or the whole amount in cash entails dismissal of the suit and has the effect of barring, of fresh suit. Reading the two provisions in conjunction, there is no doubt left that the dismissal of the suit under section 24 of the Act ibid finally determines the rights of the parties albeit, subject of course to the decision of the appeal or revision (Haji Jahat Gul, Khan v. Haji Faqir Muhammad and 4 others) reported as PLD 1993 SC 204.
6. Resultantly, I am of the view, that the Courts below have committed no illegality or material irregularity and, therefore, interference by this Court is not warranted. The instant revision petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No orders as to costs. A.A./1889/P Revision dismissed.