1987 PLP 1427 (SCMR)
GHULAM QADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1427 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1427 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1427 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1427 (SCMR) (GHULAM QADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH YAR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, BWP. Bench, dated 7‑4‑1987 in R.S.A. No. 32‑BWP of 1964). ‑‑‑S. 100 &
0. XXII, R. 1‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Abatement of appeal‑‑Death of one of appellants‑‑Suit for pre‑emption Joint purchase of land by two partners‑‑Respondent's suit for pre‑emption decreed in appeal‑‑During pendency of second appeal, one of partners dying‑‑Appeal abating due to failure to implead legal representatives of deceased partner within limitation‑‑Order impugned‑‑Finding of High Court being that sale of land was indivisible, decree obtained by respondent against appellant‑partners was also indivisible‑‑View taken by High Court that in circumstances failure to implead legal representatives of one of appellants resulted in total abatement of appeal, affirmed as it did not suffer from any infirmity and was in accord with an earlier decision of Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Shah Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh P L D 1972 S C 321 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ Pathana, predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.l to 8, and Sohna, petitioner No.9, jointly purchased in equal shares agricultural land out of a joint khata. Allah Yar, respondent filed a suit for pre‑emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge. Pathana and Sohna filed a second appeal in the High Court. In 1968 when the second appeal was still pending Pathana died. The application for bringing his legal representatives on record was made on 24‑2‑1987 which was rejected on the ground of limitation. The High Court then dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had abated. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court.
2. There is a finding by the High Court that the sale made in favour of Pathana and Sohna was indivisible. That being so, the decree obtained by the respondent was also indivisible. In the circumstances the view taken by the High Court that the failure to implead the legal representatives of Pathana within time resulted in total abatement of the appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. In fact it finds support from a decision of this Court reported as Shah Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh P L D 1972 S C
321. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /G‑25/S Petition dismissed.