1991 PLP 1777 (SCMR)
SAJAWAL KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1777 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | SAJAWAL KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1777 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1777 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. 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 1777 (SCMR) (SAJAWAL KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus HUKAM DAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1990.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 7-12-1988 in Civil Revision No.28 of 1983).
S.15
Constitution f Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Doctrine of sinker-- Applicability in Punjab
High Court in revision, on the application of rule of sinker had decreed suit for pre-emption against vendee-- Vendee's plea was that rule of sinker was not applicable to the Province of Punjab, thus judgment of High Court merited to be set aside
Supreme Court in Maula Bakhsh's case reported as P L D 1989 S C 278 and in Muhammad Ismail's case reported as P L D 1989 S C 47-t had laid down the law that rule of sinker was applicable in the Punjab
High Court thus decided the case correctly on the application of rule of sinker
Leave to appeal was refused. Maula Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif PLD 1989 SC 278 and Muhammad Ismail and others v. Karamat Ali PLD 1989 SC 474 rel.
S.115
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.173
Question of limitation
Vendee's contention that revision filed by pre-emptor in High Court was barred by limitation--High Court adequately dealt with question of limitation and having relied on the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar reported as P L D 1975 S C 678, also took note of the beneficial provisions contained in S.14, Limitation Act, 1908, and thereby repelled the bar of limitation and even of laches raised from vendee's side
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar PLD 1975 SC 678 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants/vendees in a suit for pre‑emption against the acceptance by the High Court of the respondent/pre‑emptor's civil revision. The petitioners/vendees have lost the case on account of the application of the rule of sinker. As stated by the learned counsel although Sajawal Khan petitioner/vendee could successfully compete with respondent/pre‑emptor as he had also the right of pre‑emption the other two vendees/petitioners, namely, Mansabdar Khan and Fazal Karim could not so compete. Accordingly the rule of sinker having also been applied against Sajawal Khan, the respondent's civil revision was allowed by the High Court. Learned counsel has contended that as the rule of sinker does not apply to the Province of Punjab, therefore, the judgment of the High Court merited to be set aside. He also relied on some leave grant orders by this Court. He, however, was not aware that this question has since been decided and two recent judgments are against the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel. They are: Maula Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif PLD 1989 SC 278 and Muhammad Ismail and others v. Karamat Ali PLD 1989 SC
474. This contention, therefore, has no force. Learned counsel then contended that the point of sinker was not pleaded in the plaint by the respondent. When told that the claim in the plaint in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof is comprehensive enough that all legal questions regarding rights of the respective parties would be deemed to have been included therein he did not press the point. At the end learned counsel contended that the civil revision filed by the respondent/pre‑emptor was barred by time. The learned Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with this question and having relied on a judgment of this Court in Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar P L D 1975 S ‑C 678, also took note of the beneficial provisions contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act and accordingly repelled the plea of bar of limitation and even of laches raised from the petitioners/defendants' side. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not find any force in this petition. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. AA./S‑523/S Leave refused.