1989 PLP 445 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAM BIBI and 4 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 445 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAM BIBI and 4 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 445 (CLC)?
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 445 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 445 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus KARAM BIBI and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Nagi for Petitioners. Faiz Muhammad Sadiq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Suit for possession through pre‑emption ‑‑Suit of pre‑emptor was decreed by Trial Court on ground of co‑sharer on 4‑7‑1987. i.e. after crucial date‑‑Plaint did not contain assertion that 'Talabs' were made in mode prescribed by Islamic jurisprudence‑‑Decree set aside. Barkat Ali v . Khan Muhammad and others 1988 S C M R 1800 (1); Sardar Ali and others v. 'Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 SC 287 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din P L D 1988 SC 701 rel. Sher Bahadur v. Behran Khan 1988 S C M R 1735 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Barkat Ali v . Khan Muhammad and others 1988 S C M R 1800 (1); Sardar Ali and others v. 'Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 SC 287 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din P L D 1988 SC 701 rel. Sher Bahadur v. Behran Khan 1988 S C M R 1735 ref. Muhammad Aslam Nagi for Petitioners. Faiz Muhammad Sadiq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th October, 1988. The facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision under ‑section 115, C.P.C. are that a suit for possession through pre‑emption was filed by the respondnets against the petitioners on the grounds of relationship with the vendor and being co‑sharers. The learned trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4‑7‑1987. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 24‑1‑1988. The petitioners thereafter filed this civil revision under section 115, C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the suit even on the ground of co‑sharer could not be decreed on 4‑7‑1987 as the plaint did not contain the assertion that 'talabs' were made in the mode accepted by Islamic Jurisprudence. Reliance was placed on Barkat Ali v. Khan Muhammad and others 1988 S C M R 1800 (1), Sardar All and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 SC 287 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din P L D 1988 SC
701. Learned counsel for the respondents /pre‑emptors relying on Sher Bahadur v. Behran Khan 1988 S C M R 1735 argued that the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the pre‑emptors as they were found to be co‑sharers. He was, however, unable to controvert the plea that the plaint does not contain any assertion as to making of 'talabs' in the mode prescribed by Islamic Jurisprudence.
3. In view of above, the suit of the pre‑emptors‑respondents could not be decreed after the crucial date. There is, therefore, no alternative but to set aside the impugned judgments and decrees F passed by the learned Courts below. The same are, therefore, set aside with the result that the suit shall stand dismissed. The civil revision succeeds. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H/M‑990/L Petition allowed.