1993 PLP 1547 (SCMR)
KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NIAZ BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1547 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Saleem Akhtar and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NIAZ BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1547 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1547 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Saleem Akhtar and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1547 (SCMR) (KHUDA BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NIAZ BIBI and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rahmari and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. .
- M. Munir Paracha, Advocate (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record (absent) for the Caveators.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑10‑1992 passed in R.SA. No. 1089/1969). ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑A [added by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)]‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that before S.2‑A was added to Act V of 1962 by amending Ordinance XIII of 1983, petitioners had already obtained possession of land and therefore, factum of possession being a past and closed transaction was not hit by provision of S.2‑A of Act V of 1962; and also to consider whether in the facts of the case, ratio of Ilam Din's case reported as 1991 SCMR 1911, had been correctly applied. M. Munir Paracha, Advocate (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record (absent) for the Caveators.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 2‑A [added by West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)]‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that before S.2‑A was added to Act V of 1962 by amending Ordinance XIII of 1983, petitioners had already obtained possession of land and therefore, factum of possession being a past and closed transaction was not hit by provision of S.2‑A of Act V of 1962; and also to consider whether in the facts of the case, ratio of Ilam Din's case reported as 1991 SCMR 1911, had been correctly applied. Hafiz S.A. Rahmari and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. . M. Munir Paracha, Advocate (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record (absent) for the Caveators. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court held that in view of Ilam Din and others v. Muhammad Ashfaq (1991 SCMR 1991) and section 2 of Ordinance XIII of 1983 the proceedings including suit and appeals have abated.
2. Briefly the facts are that Khuda Bakhsh, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jauharabad for a declaration that the gift of land measuring 84 Kanals and 6 Marlas made by Khanjar Khan deceased in favour of Falak Sher by mutation dated 1‑2‑1966 was illegal and against custom and thereby void and ineffective on his reversionary rights, who was his collateral. He claimed possession of half share of the suit land. The suit was decreed on 21‑3‑1969 and the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed on 20‑6‑1969. He then filed second appeal on 30‑9‑1969. It seems that as no stay had been granted the petitioners in execution of the decree obtained delivery of possession on 6‑12‑1969. The second appeal was held to have abated as aforestated by the impugned judgment dated 28‑10‑1992.
3. The learned counsel contended that as before the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 came into force the petitioners had already obtained possession of the land and therefore it was a past and closed transaction and was not hit by the ordinance.
4. Leave is granted to consider the question whether in the facts of this case the ratio of Ilam Din's case has correctly been applied. AA./K‑215/S Leave granted.