2014 PLP 146 (SCMR)
RUSTAM — Petitioner Versus AURANGZEB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 146 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | RUSTAM — Petitioner Versus AURANGZEB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 146 (SCMR) (RUSTAM — Petitioner Versus AURANGZEB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Rehman Khan Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 2013.
- ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was Shafi-e-Shureek in the suit land regarding which suit for pre-emption was instituted by the respondents and this fact is confirmed from a document Exh.P.W.3/1 produced in the evidence by the respondents as well, but this important legal aspect of the case has escaped the sight of all the three courts below. He refers to the judgment in the case of Faizullah Khan v. Haji Abdul Hakeem Khan (2011 SCMR 1802) and submits that in view of section 20 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 even if the plea of being co-sharer in the suit land has not been taken by a party in the written statement, this Court is competent to take notice of this fact and decide the case on merits in this regard. In the same context he has also placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Khan Gul Khan v. Daraz Khan (2010 SCMR 539).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1-4-2013 in C.R. No.304 of 2006 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, Abbottabad.)
S. 20
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Co-sharer (shafi-e-shareek) of suit land
Contentions of co-sharer (petitioner) were that he was shafi-e-shareek in the suit land, which fact had escaped sight of all three courts below; that even if plea of being co-sharer had not been taken up by a party in the written statement, the Supreme Court was competent to take notice of such fact and decide the case on merits
Contentions raised by petitioner needed consideration, leave to appeal was granted accordingly. Faizullah Khan v. Haji Abdul Hakeem Khan 2011 SCMR 1802 and Khan Gul Khan v. Daraz Khan 2010 SCMR 539 ref. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 in person.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was Shafi-e-Shureek in the suit land regarding which suit for pre-emption was instituted by the respondents and this fact is confirmed from a document Exh.P.W.3/1 produced in the evidence by the respondents as well, but this important legal aspect of the case has escaped the sight of all the three courts below. He refers to the judgment in the case of Faizullah Khan v. Haji Abdul Hakeem Khan (2011 SCMR 1802) and submits that in view of section 20 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 even if the plea of being co-sharer in the suit land has not been taken by a party in the written statement, this Court is competent to take notice of this fact and decide the case on merits in this regard. In the same context he has also placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Khan Gul Khan v. Daraz Khan (2010 SCMR 539).
2. Contention raised needs consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
3. Notice of C.M.A. No.2888 of 2013 be issued to the respondents but in the meantime parties shall maintain status quo. MWA/R-5/SC Leave granted.