1987 PLP 169 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Similarity of point urged‑ Leave to appeal granted on the ground that leave had already been granted in other cases where similar point was urged. Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 ref. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Zahid Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1986. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of a petition for leave to appeal brought by Rahim Bakhsh and others from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 18 6‑1986, whereby their second appeal was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents brought a suit for pre‑emption of the land described in para. 1 of the plaint claiming a superior right of pre‑emption on the ground of their relationship with the vendor and on account of their being owners in the estate. It was also alleged in the plaint that the bargain was stuck for Rs.3,000 but in order to defeat their right of pre‑emption an inflated amount of Rs.5,600 had been given as the sale price. The suit was contested and as many as nine issues were framed by the learned trial Court. After recording the evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment and order dated 22‑12‑1982 dismissed the suit of the respondents. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, however, reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents on the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,600 vide his judgment dated 21‑5‑1985. The above finding was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court by way of second appeal which was dismissed through the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The only ground agitated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the suit of the respondents must fail in view of the latest judgment of the Appellate Shariat Bench reported as Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 360 wherein it has been held that the provision of section 15(a) and (b), clause thirdly of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, recognizing a right of pre‑emption of a successor of a vendor, has been held to be repugnant to the Injunction of Islam. Since leave has been granted by this Court in a number of cases where similar point has been urged, we, therefore, grant leave in this petition and direct that this appeal may be heard alongwith other similar appeals. Security Rs.2.000. 4.The learned counsel for the caveator, in view of the circumstances, has prayed that the respondents may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by them without prejudice to their case. We order accordingly. M.I. Leave granted.