1994 PLP 1763 (SCMR)
FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1763 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1763 (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 1994 PLP 1763 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1763 (SCMR) (FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Qureshy, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasam Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1993
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 20‑6‑1992 in C.R. No. 188‑D of 1993/BWP). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Superior right of pre‑emption was disputed‑‑‑Trial Court and High Court in revision found that plaintiff was not possessed of superior right of pre‑emption while First Appellate Court decreed plaintiff's suit on the ground that he had a superior right of pre‑emption to acquire the land in question‑‑‑Finding of High Court with regard to superior right of pre‑emption was contended to be founded on misapplication of relevant law and that it erred in holding that plaintiff had no superior right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Contention raised in support of petition for leave to appeal, would need examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 20‑6‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby in revisional jurisdiction a learned Single Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial Court whereby the suit for pre‑emption of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. One Muhammad Nawaz Shah sold about 20 Kanals of land in village Kotla Mahmood Khan of Tehsil Rahimyar Khan to the respondent for a sum of Rs.25,
000. The transaction was an oral one and it was evidenced by a mutation attested on 20‑3‑1974. The petitioner filed a suit for pre‑emption. He inter alia alleged that he was a co‑sharer in the Khata of which the land sold formed a part and that the respondent was an outsider so far as the said Khata was concerned. The trial Court found that the petitioner was not a co‑sharer in the joint Khata and as such he did not possess a better right than the respondent to acquire the land. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. The learned Additional District Judge held that by virtue of an exchange which took place in 1968 the petitioner had become a co‑sharer in the Khata; consequently, he was a co‑owner therein and for that reason he did possess a superior right to acquire the land in dispute. Accordingly, by his judgment dated 7‑4‑1983 he decreed the petitioner's suit. The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the judgment of the first appellate Court. A learned Single Judge took the view that the petitioner did not possess the preferential right; accordingly, he accepted the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and restored that of the trial Court. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the superior right of the petitioner is founded on misapplication of the relevant law and that it erred in holding that he was not a co‑sharer in the relevant Khata.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider that the contention raised in support of this, petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Status quo with regard to possession to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. AA./F‑285/S Leave granted.