1994 PLP 1784 (SCMR)
BAZIDA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1784 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | BAZIDA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1784 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1784 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1784 (SCMR) (BAZIDA through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On .appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Bench at D.I. Khan, dated 25‑2‑1992 in Revision Petition No. 219 of 1991). North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑No demands (talbs) as required under provision of S. 13, North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1987, were made in the plaint‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the principle laid down in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360)‑‑‑Talbs being condition precedent for institution of a suit for pre‑emption, plaint did not disclose that any Talbs had been made‑‑‑All the three Courts having taken a legal view leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360; Govt. of N: W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1990 SC 865 and Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah 1992 SCMR 445 and Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SCMR 1129 rel. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif 1992 SCMR 1129 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 25‑2‑1992; whereby the Civil Revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for pre‑emption which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 11‑3‑..1991. The petitioner's appeal before the learned District Judge and the revision petition before the High Court were dismissed by the respective Courts.
3. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed on the principle laid down in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360). The learned High Court also took notice of the judgment of the Court reported as Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1990 SC 865).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a superior right of pre‑emption, therefore, his suit could not be dismissed. The learned counsel has relied upon Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif (1992 SCMR 1129). Now, the. final judgment on the subject has been passed by this Court in Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1992 SCMR 445) which has specifically stated that "only those suits which were pending before the commencement of the new Act, 1987 will not abate where the right of pre‑emption is claimed by such pre‑emptors in whom the right of pre‑emption vests under section 6 of the said Act and they have made a demand of pre‑emption (Talab) as required under the provisions of section 13 thereof'. Section 13 of the Act clearly provides that "the right of pre‑emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such a person makes demands for pre‑emption". The learned counsel admits that no Talabs had been made by the pre‑emptor in the present matter. However, he submitted that no issue was framed, therefore, the petitioner could not prove that the requisite Talabs had been made. Talabs are conditions precedent for institution of a suit. The plaint does not specifically state that any Talab had been made.
5. All the three Courts have taken a correct and legal, view. This petition has no force: The same accordingly is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./B‑231/S Leave refused.