1994 PLP 1735 (SCMR)
Mst. MADE DAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1735 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad , JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MADE DAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Proving Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Proving Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad , JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1735 (SCMR) (Mst. MADE DAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AMANULLAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Bench at D.I. Khan, dated 25‑2‑1992 in Revision Petition No. 220/1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Talabs were condition precedent for institution of a suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Plaint did not specifically state that Talabs had been made‑‑‑Suit was dismissed on the rule laid down in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360)‑‑‑All the Courts below in dismissing so it for pre‑emption for non‑incorporating Talabs in plaint, took a valid and legal view‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360;‑ Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SC R 1129 and Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah 1992 SCMR 445 rel. Government of N: .F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1990 SC 865 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992. JUDGMENT. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave, to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 25‑2‑1992 whereby the Civil Revision of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for pre‑emption which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 11‑3‑1991. The petitioners' appeal before the learned District Judge and Revision Petition before the High Court were dismissed by the respective Courts.
3. The suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the principle laid down in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360). The learned High Court also took notice of the judgment of this Court reported as Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (P LD 1990 S C 865).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a superior right of pre‑emption, therefore, their suit could not be dismissed. The learned counsel has relied upon Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif (1992 SCMR 1129). Now, the final judgment on the subject has been passed by this Court in Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1'.992 SCMR 445) which has specifically stated that "Only those suits which were pending before the commencement of the Act 1987 will not abate where the right of pre‑emption is claimed by such pre‑emptors in whom the rig; ht of pre‑emption vests under section 6 of the said Act and they have made a demand of pre‑emption (Talab) as required under the provisions of section 13 thereof." Section 13 of the Act clearly provides that "the right of pre‑emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands for pre‑emption". The learned counsel admits that no Talabs had been made by the pre‑ emptor in the present matter. However, he submitted that no issue was framed, therefore, the petitioners could not prove that the requisite Talabs had beets made. Talabs are conditions precedent for institution of a suit. The plaint does not specifically state that any Talab had been made.
5. All the three Courts have taken a correct and legal view. This petition has no force. The same accordingly is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑1925/S Leave refused.