1994 PLP 1089 (MLD)
Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1089 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1089 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1089 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1089 (MLD) (Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.35
Suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed by Trial Court
Case had been remanded for fresh trial on appeal
No decree had been passed in favour of pre-emptor at any stage of the litigation
No decree, having been passed, provisions of S.35, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was not attracted
Grounds embodied in .plaint for pre-emption were also not available under the Act
Remand order was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This FA.O. arises out of a suit for possession through pre-emption filed on 18-12-1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sialkot. The right of pre-emption was claimed on the ground of being a collateral (son) of the vendor. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31-5-1980. The respondent preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 10-6-1982 and remanded the case for fresh trial in accordance with the law.
2. The respondent is represented by two learned counsels whose names have duly appeared in the cause list. Despite several calls, cone of their has appeared. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
3. Admittedly, no decree was passed in favour of the pre-emptor at any stage of the litigation. Now in view of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble I Supreme Court in the cases of Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 and Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 289 no decree can be passed in favour of the pre-emptor/respondents. The respondents cannot even take advantage of the provisions of section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act,, 1991 which covers the suite instituted or pending between the Ist day of August, 1986 and the 28th March, 1990 in which the right of pre-emption was claimed as was available under the said Act. In the present case, the suit was filed on 19-12-1979 and dismissed on 31-5-1980. Moreover, the ground embodied in the plaint for pre -emption is not available under the .Act. Since no pre-emption decree can now be passed in favour of the plaintiff/pre-emptor, the proceedings in pursuance of the remand order shall be an exercise in futility. Therefore, this appeal is accepted, the remand order dated - 10-6-1982 passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the respondent's suit ordered to be dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.Z.S./S-409/L Remand order set aside.