1988 PLP 1653 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1653 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1653 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1653 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afza1 Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1653 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and decree dated 15-5-1985 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.801 of 1971).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Right of pre-emption- -Principle of sinker, application of--Vendee joining strangers in sale--Effect of--Pre-emption suit--One of vendees having right equal to that of pre-emptors losing same by joining strangers in the sale--Plea that sale was divisible and share of said vendee was separable, repelled--Shares of different vendees though had been specified in the deed, yet they paid price in lump sum and purchased land on share basis and not field-wise--Leave to appeal refused.
O.XLI, R.27--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Additional evidence, production of--Leave to -appeal sought against High Court's order rejecting prayer for additional evidence--No explanation having been offered why evidence which was sought to be produced in High Court for first time was not tendered before trial Court--Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal the principle of sinker has been applied and it has been held that Nazir Ahmad, one of the vendees, who had a right equal to that of the pre‑emptors, had lost the same by joining strangers in the sale.
2. It is contended that the sale was divisible and for that reason the share of Nazir Ahmad was separable.
3. After going through the sale‑deed we are unable to accept this contention. Although the shares of the different vendees have been specified in the deed, yet they paid the price in lump sum and purchased the land on share basis and not field‑wise.
4. It is also contended that the learned High Court was no right in rejecting their prayer for additional evidence. This contention is also without any merit, for, no explanation has been offered why the evidence which was sought to be produced in the High Court of the first time was not tendered before the trial Court.
5. No other point has been raised. This petition is dismissed. M.I./N‑82/S Petition dismissed.