1994 PLP 115 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 115 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 115 (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 1994 PLP 115 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 115 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 10‑1‑993 in Civil Revision No. 975 of 1975). ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Only question for consideration was whether suit for pre‑emption had been brought within time‑‑‑Defendants claimed that sale having taken place in 1960, mutation with regard to same was attested on 9‑10‑1970‑‑‑Suit was brought within one year of attestation of such mutation‑‑‑If attestation of mutation was treated as .the starting point for limitation, suit would be within time‑‑‑Defendants, however, claimed that immediately after sale and long before attestation of mutation, they took actual physical possession of land purchased by them‑‑‑In support of such claim defendants referred to entries in Khasra Girdawari relating to year 1969‑‑‑High Court and Trial Court were not impressed by such entries, coming on the record, as they did about nine years after alleged date of sale‑‑‑No case was made out to take a different view by the Supreme Court in the matter‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Only question for consideration was whether suit for pre‑emption had been brought within time‑‑‑Defendants claimed that sale having taken place in 1960, mutation with regard to same was attested on 9‑10‑1970‑‑‑Suit was brought within one year of attestation of such mutation‑‑‑If attestation of mutation was treated as .the starting point for limitation, suit would be within time‑‑‑Defendants, however, claimed that immediately after sale and long before attestation of mutation, they took actual physical possession of land purchased by them‑‑‑In support of such claim defendants referred to entries in Khasra Girdawari relating to year 1969‑‑‑High Court and Trial Court were not impressed by such entries, coming on the record, as they did about nine years after alleged date of sale‑‑‑No case was made out to take a different view by the Supreme Court in the matter‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1993. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit filed by the respondent and the only, question for consideration is whether it was brought within time.
2. The petitioners are the vendees. The sale in their favour was an oral one. According to them the sale took place in 1960. However, that may be, the mutation with regard to the sale was attested on 9‑10‑1970: The suit was brought within a year of the attestation of the mutation.
3. If the attestation of the mutation is treated as the starting point for a limitation the suit would admittedly be within time. However, the case of the petitioners is that immediately after the sale and long before the attestation of the mutation they took actual physical possession of the land purchased by them. In support of their claim they referred to certain entries in the Khasra Girdawari relating to the year 1969. The High Court and the learned trial Court were not impressed by these entries, coming on the record, as they did about nine years after the alleged date of sale. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. Leave is refused. AA./A‑1050/S Leave refused.