2002 SCMR 118 (PLP)
GHULAM NABI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 SCMR 118 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SCMR 118 (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 2002 SCMR 118 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 SCMR 118 (PLP) (GHULAM NABI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Ali Zai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.21‑‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991), S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑ Dismissal of suit‑‑‑Effect of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360)‑‑‑Contention of the vendees was that Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991, was promulgated in the year 1991, suit of the pre‑emptors could not be decreed even if the pre‑emptors were granted time to make up deficiency in the court‑fee and the same was made good and they were found to have right of pre‑emption according to the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, as such, the remand of the case was not justified and proceedings after remand would be exercise in futility‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of the vendees. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Dil Muhammad Khan Ali Zai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th July, 2001. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑Three suits to pre‑empt the sale made in favour of the petitioners were filed in the trial Court. Suit No.226 of 1967 filed by Fateh Khan was dismissed as withdrawn; the plaint of Suit No.315 of 1964 filed by Sher Muhammad and Mst. Sohagin was rejected for want of cause of action and also non‑compliance with the order of the Court to make up deficiency in the court‑fee; the third suit filed by Sajjad Hussain alias Ejaz Hussain and Kaniz Kulsoom alias Shamim Akhtar was, however, decreed through judgment, dated 21‑12‑1970.
2. The judgment impugned in this petition has been passed in appeal filed by Sher Muhammad and Mst. Sohagan and the case has been remanded by giving direction that before proceedings to reject the plaint of their suit, they should have been given opportunity to make up deficiency in the court -fee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at no stage of the proceedings before 31‑7‑1986 when the judgment is Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360) became effective, a decree of pre‑emption was passed in favour of Sher Muhammad and Mst. Sohagan, therefore, in view of the law declared subsequently by this Court and also as provided in the new Pre emption Act promulgated in 1991, their suit cannot now be decreed even if there are granted time to make up deficiency in the court‑fee and the same is made good and they are held to right of pre‑emption according to the old Pre‑emption Act, as such, the remand of the case was not justified and proceedings after remand would be exercise in futility.
4. Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, the above contention.
5. The operation of the impugned judgment, dated 26‑1‑2001 of the Lahore High Court is hereby suspended and further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
6. Since short point is involved in this appeal, therefore, the same shall be listed for hearing in the month of November, 2001. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑83/S Leave granted.