1986 PLP 431 (SCMR)
Mst. NAWAZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 431 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NAWAZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 431 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 431 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 431 (SCMR) (Mst. NAWAZ FATIMA‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.A. Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1980.
- Mr. Shaikh Masud Akhtar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner submits that the notification, dated 12‑6‑1944 which placed prohibition on the claims of pre‑emption was withdrawn by notification, dated 12‑2‑1974 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to a decree in her favour at the stage of second appeal in the High Court since by then the bar to the claim in suit had been removed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, dated 20‑3‑1975 in R.S.A. No. 70 of 1964‑BWP). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Notification No. 74, dated 12‑6‑1944‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Petitioner plaintiff having no right of pre‑emption in property at time of sale and at time of suit and a right revived to him after institution of suit‑‑Suit of petitioners, held, rightly dismissed by Courts below‑.‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑The petitioner's suit for pre‑emption was dismissed by the trial judge on 11‑3‑1963 on the ground that the suit land was situated in colony area and was not subject to pre‑emption. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur on 18‑4‑1964, and her second appeal was also dismissed by Lahore High Court for the same reason on 20‑3‑1975 and she now seeks special leave to appeal. Mr. Shaikh Masud Akhtar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner submits that the notification, dated 12‑6‑1944 which placed prohibition on the claims of pre‑emption was withdrawn by notification, dated 12‑2‑1974 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to a decree in her favour at the stage of second appeal in the High Court since by then the bar to the claim in suit had been removed. This argument has rightly been rejected by the High Court for the reason that "pre‑emptor did not have any right of pre‑emption in the property on account of notification No. 74, dated 12‑6‑1944 issued under section 8(2) of the Pre‑emption Act. It is a cardinal principle that the pre‑emptor must have a right of pre‑emption at the time of the sales and at the time of the suit but the appellant lacks such right both at the time of the sale and at the time of the suit. In such circumstances if a right has revived to him after the institution of the suit, it would not give him any advantage." , The view that has prevailed in the High Court is well‑settled and there is, therefore, no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel. This petition is dismissed in limine. M . Y . H Leave petition dismissed.