1988 PLP 118 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus SULTAN MAHMOOD — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 118 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus SULTAN MAHMOOD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 118 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 118 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 118 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus SULTAN MAHMOOD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 3-6-1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 893-D of 1983).
O. XXXII, R. 3--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.22--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Suit against minor-- Appointment of guardian ad litem- Limitation--Pre-emption suit--One of vendees who was minor not sued through a guardian ad litem--Prayer for amendment to sue him through guardian ad litem made after expiry of period of limitation, rejected- Order impugned--Matter having been thoroughly discussed by High Court and rejected by a well--reasoned order, Supreme Court declined to interfere--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Mohammad Ismail etc. v. Muhammad Sarwar etc. 1980 S C M R 254 rel.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--There is no dispute that the respondent had a preferential right of pre-emption. This right is sought to be defeated on the ground that one, out of the four vendees, was a minor when the suit was filed but he was not sued through a guardian ad litem and as the prayer for amendment to sue him through a guardian ad litem was made after the expiry of the period of limitation, the Courts below had erred in granting this amendment. This aspect of the case has been thoroughly discussed by the High Court and the above submission rejected by a well-reasoned order. In doing so, the High Court also referred this Court's judgment in Muhammad Ismail etc. v. Muhammad Sarwar etc. 1980 SCMR
254. We are in wholehearted agreement with the decision of the High Court on the point in issue. M.I./S-79/S Petition dismissed.