1991 PLP 1668 (SCMR)
GHULAM HAMDANI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 9 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1668 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HAMDANI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 9 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Muhammadan Law |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1668 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Muhammadan Law as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1668 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1668 (SCMR) (GHULAM HAMDANI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 9 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th February, 1990.
- Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ellahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15-5-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Civil Revision No. 156-D of 1988).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Transaction of sale, brought under challenge, was dated 4-10-1986 i.e., after the decision of Supreme Court in said Kamal Shah's case reported as P L D 1986 S C 360
Pre-emptor, in suit had prima facie, taken up those pleas on basis of which he might have succeeded on the grounds available in a case of pre-emption under Muhammadan Law
Assertions regarding requirement of Talabs were also stated in plaint, and it was stressed that same had been fulfilled-- Notwithstanding fulfilment of all such requirements, pre-emptor's suit was dismissed throughout on the ground that the supporting law contained in Islamic Law of Shufa regarding pre-emption was not available to pre-emptor
Pre-emptor's plea was that vacuum created by the judgment in said Kamal's case reported as P L D 1986 S C 360 in the field of pre-emption law, in so far as statutory dispensation was concerned had been filled automatically b` Islamic Law of Shufa
petitioner's further plea was that the principle under the Islamic Law of Shufa which was being practised by the litigants and enforced by Courts without legislative support, in Sindh and Balochistan. would also be attracted in the Punjab in those cases which had arisen after the target date in Malik Said Kamal's case
Contentions raised being of general importance, leave to appeal was granted. Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360; Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lyallpur and others P L D 1976 Lah. 930 and Ahmad v. Aziz P L D 1989 S C 771 rel. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.
Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff in this pre-emption matter against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner filed the suit in this case after the decision by this Court in the case of Government of N: W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 Supreme Court
360. The transaction brought under challenge was dated 4-10-1986; i.e. after the said judgment had come into effect. In the suit the petitioner had, prima facie, taken up those pleas on the basis of which he might have succeeded on the grounds available in a case of (Muslim Shufa). The assertion was also made in the plaint regarding requirement of Talabs which, it was stated, had been fulfilled. Notwithstanding all this the petitioner's suit has been dismissed throughout on the ground that the supporting law contained in the Islamic Fiqh regarding pre-emption was not available to the petitioner. This petition came up before this Court on 24-5-1989 for hearing. Mr.M.Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the plea that the vacuum created by the judgment in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah in the field of pre-emption law in so far as the statutory dispensation was concerned, had been filled automatically by Islamic Law of Shufa. The argument being attractive we permitted the learned counsel to further prepare the case on the line adopted by him. Today his senior Khawaja Farooq again asked him to argue the matter. He has relied on the case of Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lyallpur and others PLD 1970 Lahore 930 for the general proposition advanced by him and has also sought the support from some of the judgments relied upon in that very case. He has further argued that the principle under the Islamic Law of Shufa which is being practised by the litigants and enforced by the Courts without legislative support in Sindh and Balochistan, would also be attracted in the Punjab in those cases which arise after the target date in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah. He has also for general support relied on Ahmed v. Aziz PLD1989SC
771. The questions raised are of general importance. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.5,000 The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. A.A./G-284/S Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiff in this pre‑emption matter against the dismissal by the High Court of his Civil Revision. The petitioner filed the suit in this case after the decision by this Court in the case of Government of N: W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 Supreme Court
360. The transaction brought under challenge was dated 4‑10‑1986; i.e. after the said judgment had come into effect. In the suit the petitioner had, prima facie, taken up those pleas on the basis of which he might have succeeded on the grounds available in a case of (Muslim Shufa). The assertion was also made in the plaint regarding requirement of Talabs which, it was stated, had been fulfilled. Notwithstanding all this the petitioner's suit has been dismissed throughout on the ground that the supporting law contained in the Islamic Fiqh regarding pre‑emption was not available to the petitioner. This petition came up before this Court on 24‑5‑1989 for hearing. Mr.M.Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the plea that the vacuum created by the judgment in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah in the field of pre‑emption law in so far as the statutory dispensation was concerned, had been filled automatically by Islamic Law of Shufa. The argument being attractive we permitted the learned counsel to further prepare the case on the line adopted by him. Today his senior Khawaja Farooq again asked him to argue the matter. He has relied on the case of Haji Nizam Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lyallpur and others PLD 1970 Lahore 930 for the general proposition advanced by him and has also sought the support from some of the judgments relied upon in that very case. He has further argued that the principle under the Islamic Law of Shufa which is being practised by the litigants and enforced by the Courts without legislative support in Sindh and Balochistan, would also be attracted in the Punjab in those cases which arise after the target date in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah. He has also for general support relied on Ahmed v. Aziz PLD1989SC
771. The questions raised are of general importance. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.5,000 The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. A.A./G‑284/S Leave granted.