1988 PLP 1563 (SCMR)
CIVIL PETITION No.526 OF 1984 FAZAL KARIM — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1563 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | CIVIL PETITION No.526 OF 1984 FAZAL KARIM — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal 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 1563 (SCMR) (CIVIL PETITION No.526 OF 1984 FAZAL KARIM — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khwaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.527 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No.527 of 1984) .
- Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Bar-at-Law and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.446 of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.446 of 1985).
- Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.677 of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No.677 of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No.712 of 1985).
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
- Khwaja Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.527 of 1984).
- Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Bar‑at‑Law and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.446 of 1985).
- Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No.677 of 1985).
- Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for ‑Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.712 of 1985).
Headnotes / Summary
S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption- Amended law, application of--Suit for pre-emption--No decree having been passed in favour of petitioners- pre-emptors at any stage before 31-7-1986, when law laid down by Supreme Court became effective, no decree could be passed in their favour now, as held by Supreme Court in P L D 1988 S C 287. Sardar Ali and others v . Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 rel.
Ss.21 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Suit for pre-emption-- Petitioners/pre-emptors aggrieved by notification issued under S.8 of the Act--Suit was not decreed in higher forum at any stage before 31-7-1986 when Supreme Court judgment on the point became effective--Suit, held, could not be decreed now. Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 rel. Sh.Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for -Petitioners (in Civil Petition No.712 of 1985).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These leave to appeal petitions have been filed by pre‑emptors in separate cases. Their learned counsel have stated that no decree was passed in favour of any of the petitioners at any stage before 31‑7‑1986. That being so, no decree can be passed in their favour now as held IA by this Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A. 208/80 and other matters, decided on 2‑5‑1988:) PLD 1988 S C 287). Before parting, it needs to be noticed that the facts in C.P. 446/85 are slightly different from the facts of an ordinary pre‑emption suit in this case. The petitioners/ pre‑emptors had also felt aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 8 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. Be that as it may, if the suit of the petitioners was dismissed before 31‑7‑1986 and that suit was not decreed in higher forum at any stage before that date, it cannot be decreed now. And if the suit was never decreed before that date by any Court, in that case also it cannot be decreed now. Therefore, in this petition the aforesaid declaration of law would apply. In the light of what has been stated above, these petitions are dismissed. M.I. /F‑58/S Petitions dismissed.