1989 PLP 3446 (MLD)
GUL MIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3446 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | GUL MIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3446 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3446 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3446 (MLD) (GUL MIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit, maintainability of‑‑Pre‑emption suit filed by pre- emptors on ground of being owners in estate was decreed by Trial Court long after 31‑7‑1986 and decree of trial Court was upheld by Appellate Court‑‑Since at no stage of suit any decree was passed in favour of pre‑emptors before 31‑7‑1986, suit, held. was not maintainable and no decree could be passed after said date. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913) ‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑Pre‑emption decree, maintainability of‑ Decree granted to pre‑emptors by Trial Court on ground of their being owners of estate was affirmed by Appellate Court with additional finding that land of pre- emptors was also contiguous to land in dispute‑‑No law having been enacted as yet conferring right of pre‑emption on ground of contiguity, Appellate Court, held, had no jurisdiction to grant decree on that ground. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Two Courts below having exercised jurisdiction not vested in them under law to grant decree for possession of land through pre‑emption, High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decrees passed by both Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Right of pre‑emption‑‑Pre‑emption decree, maintainability of‑ Decree granted to pre‑emptors by Trial Court on ground of their being owners of estate was affirmed by Appellate Court with additional finding that land of pre- emptors was also contiguous to land in dispute‑‑No law having been enacted as yet conferring right of pre‑emption on ground of contiguity, Appellate Court, held, had no jurisdiction to grant decree on that ground. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Two Courts below having exercised jurisdiction not vested in them under law to grant decree for possession of land through pre‑emption, High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decrees passed by both Courts below. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioners. Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989. This revision petition has arisen from pre‑emption suit in which decree was granted to the respondents by the learned trial Court for the first time on 13‑3‑1988 on the ground that they were owners of the estate. In appeal filed by the petitioners the said finding was upheld by the learned lower appellate Court with the additional finding that the land of the pre‑emptor was also contiguous to the land in dispute. The appeal was dismissed through judgment, dated 27‑6‑1988. Both these judgments have been assailed in this revision petition.
2. It has been contended that no decree could be passed in favour of the respondents after 31‑7‑1986 according to law declared by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.208 of 1986. The argument is correct. Since at no stage of the suit any decree was passed in favour of the respondents before 31‑7‑1986, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and no decree could be passed after the said date. No law has been enacted as yet conferring right of pre‑emption on the ground of contiguity, therefore, the learned lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant decree on the said ground. The two Courts below have exercised jurisdiction not vested in them under the law to grant decree for' possession of land through pre‑emption to the respondents in the suit. The revision petition is accepted. The judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the pre‑emption suit filed by the respondents is, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑241/L Revision accepted,