1989 PLP 1061 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1061 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1061 (CLC)?
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 1989 PLP 1061 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1061 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Baig Mirza for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Maintainability of ‑‑Plaintiffs/pre‑emptors, despite finding of Trial Court that they were ca‑sharers in Khata, held, could not succeed in their suit for the reason that the two prerequisites 'Talab' and 'notice' for exercise of right of pre‑emption had not been asserted by them in plaint.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.562‑D of 1987, decided on 7th June, 1988. ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Maintainability of ‑‑Plaintiffs/pre‑emptors, despite finding of Trial Court that they were ca‑sharers in Khata, held, could not succeed in their suit for the reason that the two prerequisites 'Talab' and 'notice' for exercise of right of pre‑emption had not been asserted by them in plaint. Ejaz Baig Mirza for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988 Suit for possession through pre‑emption filed by the petitioners was decreed by the learned trial Court on 15‑10‑1986 to the extent of 21 Kanals 9 Marlas out of the suit land holding that the petitioners were co‑sharers and as such were possessed of superior right of pre‑emption. On appeal of the vendee this decree was set aside by the learned appellate Court as it was of the view that the plaintiffs had waived their right of pre‑emption. This led to the filing of this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel has challenged the finding of the learned appellate Court on the issue pertaining to waiver. Even otherwise the petitioners‑plaintiffs cannot succeed in their suit despite the finding A that they were co‑sharers in Khata No. 2 for the reason that the two prerequisites for the exercise of right of pre‑emption viz. 'Talab' and 'Notice' had not been asserted in the plaint. This revision., therefore, fails and is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . /M‑1039/L Revision dismissed