1991 PLP 1933 (SCMR)
ALI ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus YAQUB — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1933 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ALI ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus YAQUB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
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 1991 PLP 1933 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1933 (SCMR) (ALI ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus YAQUB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M.H. Lughwani, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate -on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1989.
- Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.H. Lughwani, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-6-1989 of the Peshawar High Court in Civil Revision No.284 of 1984).
S.30
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Pre-emption suit dismissed on ground of limitation
High Court in revision held that period of limitation would start from the date of final attestation of mutation of sale because earlier wrong order of mutation was set aside and case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law
Order of remand of mutation having been passed on 16-9-1974, attestation of mutation was effected on 4-2-1976-- Petitioner's plea that date of possession under the sale was 19-5-1974, when mutation entry was made thus date of final attestation of mutation on 4-2-1976 would lose significance and limitation would start from 19-5-1974, was not borne out by the evidence on record
Lower appellate and revisional Court also did not accept petitioner's plea in that behalf
High Court's view on factual aspect of the case being unexceptionable,, leave to appeal was refused. Sher Muhammad v. Rajada and another PLD 1981 SC 591 and Gharib Shah and others v. Zarmar Gul PLD 1984 SC 188 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has ‑been sought; against the judgment dated 21st June, 1989, of the Lahore High Court whereby; the petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of a pre‑emption decree in favour of respondent, was upheld. The suit for pre‑emption was dismissed on ground of limitation. The appeal Court reversed the decision of the trial Court. A learned Judge in the High Court on petitioner's Revision found that the period of limitation would start from the date of the final attestation of the mutation of sale‑‑‑because, earlier wrong order of mutation was set aside and the said case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. Although the learned counsel states that the detailed reasons for remand of the mutation proceedings are not available but the first order passed on 16‑9‑1974 was set aside and a fresh order of attestation of mutation was passed on 4‑2‑1976 which held the field throughout. In these circumstances learned counsel contended that the question of limitation should have been decided with preference to the first order dated 16‑9‑1974 and not the second order dated 4‑2‑1976. In this behalf he relied upon Sher Muhammad v Rajada and another (PLD 1981 SC 591). However, after carefully going through the same the learned counsel admitted that the essential ratio in the said case was the delivery of possession under the sale. Accordingly he tried to show that in this case also the date of possession under the sale being 19‑5‑1974, the suit subsequently filed after the attestation of mutation on 4‑2‑1976 was time‑barred. Learned counsel is right that in case the date of possession under the sale is found or established to be 19‑5‑1974, the date of final attestation of the mutation would lose significance. But on going through the impugned judgment as also the evidence in this behalf, we find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel on this factual aspect of the case. The lower two appeal Courts also, it seems did not accept the petitioner's plea in this behalf. Otherwise also the view taken by the High Court being unexceptionable, (See Gharib Shah and others v. Zarmar Gul (PLD 1984 SC 188), leave is refused. AA./A‑637/S Leave refused.