1996 SCMR 528 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHALIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 SCMR 528 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHALIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Ordinance (XXVIII of 1990)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 SCMR 528 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Ordinance (XXVIII of 1990)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 SCMR 528 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 SCMR 528 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHALIL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 1995
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 17‑5‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 1329 of 1994) ‑‑‑‑S. 36(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Dismissal of pre emption suit by all 'the Courts including the High Court on account of non performance of requisite Talbs‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff's plea in support of petition for leave to appeal was that requisite Talbs were avered in specified para. of the amended plaint, therefore, Courts beloN were not justified in non‑suiting him‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether plaintiffs had been rightly non suited for non‑performance of requisite Talbs.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 17-5-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1329 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the appellate judgment of the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, dated 15-2-1993 setting aside the pre-emption decree granted on 20-5-1992' by the learned Civil Judge to the petitioners, dismissing the same in limine. 2 The brief facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondent on 21-7-1988. The same was dismissed by the learned trial Court on account of non-performance of the required Talabs. Appeal and R.S.A. were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by the judgments/decrees dated 17-3-1990 and 18-4-1990, respectively. However, upon enforcement of Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance XXVIII of 1990), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, the petitioners on 1-10-1990 submitted an application under section 36(2) of the Ordinance for revival of the pre-emption suit for trial on merits. Eventually, the suit was restored and it was decreed in favour of the petitioners on 20-5-1992. However, upon appeal, the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, set aside the aforesaid judgment/decree as stated above on the ground that the plaint did not aver performance of the requisite Talabs for claiming pre-emption of the sale in question. Aforesaid civil revision filed against the above judgment also failed on the same ground. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. S. M. Tayyab, learned A.S.C. appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that in para. 3 of the amended plaint, the required Talabs were avered and, therefore, the two Courts below are not justified in non-suiting the petitioners. His further submission is that the requirement of Talabs under section 30(2) of the Ordinance is not so stringent as it was under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether, the petitioner have been rightly non-suited on the above ground found favour with the learned District Judge and the learned Judge in Chambers. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The respondent-is restrained from alienating or creating any charge or encumbrance over the suit property till the disposal of the appeal arising out of the above petition. A.A./M-2090/SC Leave granted