1989 PLP 984 (CLC)
GHULAM FARID and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 984 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 984 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 984 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 984 (CLC) (GHULAM FARID and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NASEER AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Iqbal Sargana for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Superior right‑‑Decree passed in favour of respondent -plaintiff after crucial date of 31‑7‑1986 (date fixed in Said Kamal's case P L D 1986 SC 360) on the ground that he was a collateral of vendor, held, not valid. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑"Waiver" and "admission"‑‑Distinction‑‑Contention that vendee by conceding on finding regarding superior right of pre‑emption on the ground that plaintiff was a collateral of vendor, had waived his right, not accepted‑‑Held, it was not waiver but an admission of the legal position then stood.‑‑Words and phrases].
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.15‑‑"Waiver" and "admission"‑‑Distinction‑‑Contention that vendee by conceding on finding regarding superior right of pre‑emption on the ground that plaintiff was a collateral of vendor, had waived his right, not accepted‑‑Held, it was not waiver but an admission of the legal position then stood.‑‑Words and phrases]. Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioners. Muhammad Iqbal Sargana for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.1531/D of 1988 arid 1532/1) of 1988 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of C.R. No.1531/1) of 1988.
2. The suit filed by the respondent for possession of land through pre‑emption has been decreed on the ground that he was collateral of the vendor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the said decree on the ground that at no stage of the proceedings a decree was passed in favour of the respondent before 31‑7‑1986, therefore, the impugned decree could not have been passed after the said date and having been passed after the said date is a nullity as the suit was not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent admitted that no decree was passed in the suit in favour of the respondent before 31‑7‑1986. He, however, contended that before the learned lower appellate Court the findings on the issue regarding superior right of pre‑emption were conceded to be correct, therefore, this concession would amount to waiver by the petitioner.
5. I am afraid it is difficult to accept this contention. The admission by a party that a collateral has superior right of pre‑emption is not waiver but are admission of the legal position as the law itself declares the right of the collateral being superior. The concession was with regard to only the correctness of the said finding but not abandonment of all objections against the decree. The law is firmly settled now by the Supreme Court that in such suit no decree could have been passed after 31‑7‑1986. The Courts below, therefore, have acted not only with material irregularity and illegality but exercised jurisdiction not vested in them under the law to pass decree in such a suit after 31‑7‑1986. The revision petition is hereby accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Z.S. /G‑180/L. Appeal dismissed.