1989SCMR962 (PLP)
MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR962 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR962 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR962 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR962 (PLP) (MAQBOOL AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.930 of 1985).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 984 of 1985).
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1988.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in Civil Petition No.930 of 1985).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4 & 15--Pre-emption suit--Decree passed in; pre-emption suit based on pre- emptor's right of repurchase and not of substitution--Objection against decree raised by vendee on ground that land was allotted as mortgaged land and transaction was not subject to pre-emption--Decree, held, could not be avoided on said technical ground.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These are vendees' petitions for leave to appeal in pre‑emption matters. In one petition (Civil Petition No.930 of 1985) leave has been sought against the dismissal of their Civil Revision and in the other (Civil Petition No.984 of 1985) leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. One question regarding participation of the vendees' side in separate respective agreements reached before the lower Courts, is common, therefore, they are being disposed of together. Learned counsel (in Civil Petition No.930 of 1985) has raised three contentions: (i) that 'Noon Ahmad one of the vendees was not a party to the agreement reached before the lower Court; (ii) that the land was allotted as mortgaged land, therefore, the transaction was not subject to pre‑emption; and (iii) that the sale being of 27‑3‑1968 the period of limitation expired on 26‑3‑1969, therefore, the suit was time‑barred. After hearing the learned counsel with regard to the first point, we feel satisfied that even if there is technical defect with regard to the participation of Noor Ahmad in the agreement, he was otherwise a party to it. Moreover, as admitted by the learned counsel no written objection was filed before the Court concerned in this behalf. The second argument of the learned counsel is of no help to the petitioner as the respondents‑pre‑emptors' right of pre‑emption in this case is not A one of re‑purchase but of substitution. Therefore, the petitioner would not be able to avoid the decree on this technical ground. The last argument of the learned counsel is also without force as after examining this question and the relevant dates in that behalf, he was unable too press it any further. Leave to appeal therefore is refused. In the second petition (Civil Petition No. 984 of 1985) the same learned counsel has raised the point which is similar to the first point raised in Civil Petition No. 930 of 1985. The person concerned, we are satisfied, did participate in the agreement/Court proceedings. The mere fact that only the counsel signed the proceedings will not make any difference in so far as the validity of those proceedings, is concerned. This petition also merits dismissal and leave to appeal is refused therein. M.Y.H./M‑761/S??????????????????? `?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.