1989 PLP 174 (CLC)
KARAM and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HASSAN ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 174 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, d |
| Parties | KARAM and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HASSAN ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 174 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 174 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, d.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 174 (CLC) (KARAM and 9 others‑‑Petitioners Versus HASSAN ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Fazal Abbas Bokhari for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑5. 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Right of pre‑emption on basis of kinship and ownership in Estate‑‑Ex parte decree granted to petitioner was set aside in appeal and case remanded for decision in accordance with law‑‑Trial Court rejected plaint on the ratio of. Said Kamal's case, reported as P L D 1986 SC 360, which finding was upheld in appeal‑‑No decree could be passed after specified date of 31‑7‑1986, in favour of pre‑emptor on ground of kinship and ownership in estate. Said Kamal Shah's case P L D 1986 SC 360. and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L 0 1988 SC 287 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑5. 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑Right of pre‑emption on basis of kinship and ownership in Estate‑‑Ex parte decree granted to petitioner was set aside in appeal and case remanded for decision in accordance with law‑‑Trial Court rejected plaint on the ratio of. Said Kamal's case, reported as P L D 1986 SC 360, which finding was upheld in appeal‑‑No decree could be passed after specified date of 31‑7‑1986, in favour of pre‑emptor on ground of kinship and ownership in estate. Said Kamal Shah's case P L D 1986 SC 360. and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L 0 1988 SC 287 rel. Syed Fazal Abbas Bokhari for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1988. Suit for pre‑emption on the ground of ownership in the estate and kinship was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 30‑3‑1971. The vendee‑respondents submitted an application for setting ` aside the ex parte decree but this application was also dismissed on 6‑11‑1980. The appeal of the vendees respondents against the order dated 6‑11‑1980, however, succeeded vide judgment dated 13‑3‑1983 of the learned Additional District Judge. The impugned ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the learned trial Court for decision in accordance with law. The learned trial Court after framing additional issues rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. In view of the judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case (P L D 1986 SC 360), the first appeal of the pre‑emptors taken to challenge the decree of dismissal of the suit dated 30‑10‑1986 was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on I1‑1‑1987. Hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel in support of the revision petition argued that the ex parte decree passed on 30‑3‑1971 merits to be revived as the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge in setting aside the ex parte decree was not proper. This plea is not available to the petitioners now as the judgment dated 13‑3‑1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge remained unchallenged till date In view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (P L D 1988 SC 287) no decree can now be passed in favour of the petitioners‑pre‑emptors on the ground of kinship and ownership in the estate. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A . A . / K‑120/ L Revision dismissed