2003 PLP 718 (CLC)
WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 718 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J, |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 718 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 718 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 718 (CLC) (WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 6, 34(2) & 35‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑No decree having been passed in favour of pre‑emptor before 31‑7‑1986 his suit was dismissed on that account by Trial Court and appeal against such judgment also failed‑‑‑Plaintiff had contended that in view of Ss.34(2) & 35 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991, his suit could not have been dismissed and that he could always seek revival of his case under S.35 of Punjab Pre emption Act,' 1991‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contentions of plaintiff were repelled because provisions of Ss.34(2) & 35 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 were not applicable to his case. Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf 1997 PSC 858 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SCMR 1129 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf 1997 PSC 858 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SCMR 1129 ref. Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant. Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th December, 2000. The appellant is a pre‑emptor and no decree had been passed in his favour before 31‑7‑1986. The suit was dismissed on the above account by the trial Court, and appeal has also failed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf 1997 PSC 858 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SCMR 1129, states that as per the provisions of section 35 and section 34(2) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991, the suit could not have been dismissed and the appellant could always seek the revival of his case under section 35, and it can proceed.
3. I am afraid, neither the above provisions nor the judgments, has any application to the present case, therefore, this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./W‑75/L Second appeal dismissed.