1983 PLP 2225 (CLC)
ABDUL MALIK AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2225 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MALIK AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2225 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2225 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2225 (CLC) (ABDUL MALIK AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qaisar Mahmood Shafi for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Hussain Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑- S. 4‑Pre‑emption‑Burden of proof‑ Pre‑emptor has to show not only his right of pre‑emption but also that sale and subject of sale are subject to law of pre‑emption.
Judgment & Decree
Qaisar Mahmood Shafi for Petitioners. Muhammad Hussain Khan for Respondents. This revision petition has called in question the orders of a learned Civil Judge in a suit for pre‑emption placing the burden of the following issue on the petitioners (plaintiffs) pre‑emptors :‑ "Whether the suit land is subject to pre‑emption ?"
2. The defendant (respondent) had, in his written statement, taken up the plea that the land being in a colony area, it was not subject to pre‑emption. The petitioners, in their replication in reply to this preliminary objection stated that the land is not situate in colony area and further that even in colony area the sale of land is subject to pre emption. The learned Civil Judge, as noted above, placed the burden of the issue on the plaintiffs. They filed an application for amendment of the issue so as to change the burden to the respondent (defendant) but this application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge on 7th Novem ber, 1974. Therefore, this revision petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not suffered any prejudice by the form in which the issue has been framed. I agree with the learned Civil Judge that initial presumption on the basis of an admission made in the plaint that the land is situate in Chak No. 102/NP, Tehsil Khanpur, would place the burden on the petitioners (plaintiffs) to show that it is not in a colony area. The assumptions of fact by the learned Civil Judge in the order dated 7th November. 1974 do not suffer from any infirmity which might be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C. P. C. Otherwise too, it is for the pre‑emptor to show that not only that he has right of pre‑emption but also that the sale and the subject of sale are subject to the law of pre‑emption. Initial burden is A on him, though it is conceded from the respondent side that the burden in such a matter could and might shift even during the course of trial. I do not find any fault with the form of the issue. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.