1984 PLP 399 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Appellant Versus IMRAN ISHTIAQ-UR-RAHMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 399 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Appellant Versus IMRAN ISHTIAQ-UR-RAHMAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 399 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 399 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 399 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Appellant Versus IMRAN ISHTIAQ-UR-RAHMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11--Suit for pre-emption--Transaction allegedly exchange of land--Appellant applying before Collector to dismiss suit under O.VII, r.11, C.P.C. on that account--Collector instead of dismissing application proceeded to record evidence--Appellant challenging same in appeal--Collector, held, rightly embarked upon recording of evidence to determine nature of transaction before disposing of application under O.VII, r.11, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--This order shall also dispose of I.-C.A. No.91 of 1984 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.
2. These Intra Court Appeals are directed against the orders dated 2-4-1984 of the learned Single Judge in Chambers; whereby he dismissed appellants writ petitions in limine and declined to interfere in the proceedings being held by the Collector Sheikhupura, in pre-emption suits filed by Imran Ishtiaq-ur-Rahman Khan against the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had exchanged the land in dispute with Mst. Tauli Begum respondent and had moved applications before the learned Collector asserting that the transactions in question being exchange of land, the pre-emption suits were incompetent and further that the plaints merited rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The learned trial Court instead of disposing of those applications first had recording evidence on merits of the case.
4. Learned counsel has not denied before us that the issues as to whether the transactions in question were sale or exchange have already been framed by the learned trial Court and the same can be determined only after recording evidence. In our opinion the learned Collector seized of the pre-emption suits has rightly embarked upon recording evidence on the issues, determining the nature of the transactions before disposing of the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
5. The orders impugned before us are subject to no exception. These appeals fail and are hereby dismissed in limine. M.B.A. Appeals dismissed.