1989 PLP 454 (MLD)
GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 454 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 454 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 454 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 454 (MLD) (GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Shahid Hussain Qadir for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Co‑sharer‑‑Decree in suit not passed in favour of pre‑emptors before target date viz. 31‑7‑1986 but passed thereafter‑‑Decree set aside on the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in Muhammad Shoaib's case reported as PLD 1988 SC
355. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 and Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Member (Revenue) and others PLD 1988 SC 355 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Shahid Hussain Qadir for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th December, 1988. A pre‑emption suit filed by the respondents on 5‑12‑1981 with regard to sale of 1/15th share of agricultural land on the ground also of being the co -sharers thereof, was contested by the petitioner but decreed by the trial Court on 18‑11‑1987 by repelling the defence pleas of limitation and waiver.
2. Vendee's appeal there against to contest the trial Court's findings was also dismissed on 17‑7‑1988 by an Additional District Judge by affirming the decree of the trial Court.
3. He has now come up to this Court on revision and it is urged that since decree had not been passed m favour of the pre‑emptors before the target date (31‑7‑1986) fixed in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah reported as PLD 1986 SC 360, therefore, none was open to be passed thereafter.
4. Such is also the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Member (Revenue) and others PLD 1988 SC 355, therefore, the decree passed in favour of the respondents is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside upon accepting this Civil Revision. Suit of the respondents is dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Parties are, hence, left to bear their own costs throughout. M.Y.H./G‑206/L Decree set aside.