1990 PLP 956 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 956 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 956 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 956 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 956 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FAIZ BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989.
- Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 11‑7‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No. 310‑D of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners' suit for pre emption was decreed ex parte‑‑‑Respondent's application for setting aside ex parte decree was accepted and Trial Court proceeded to try the suit on merits‑‑ Trial Court dismissed the suit but in appeal suit was remanded for fresh trial whereupon suit was decreed and respondents' appeal against decree was dismissed‑‑‑High Court, in revision set aside judgments of subordinate Courts on the ground that no decree could be passed in the suit after 31‑7‑1986 in view of dictum laid down by Supreme Court in Said Kamal Shah's case reported as P L D 1986 SC 360‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioners' contention was that a decree, even though ex parte having been passed on 17‑7‑1982, it was open to petitioners to defend it despite the fact that the same was later set aside; that the ease was not one, where decree was being passed for the first time after 31‑7‑1986, the target date specified in Said Kamal Shah's case; and that High Court had taken a view different from the Single Judge who had accepted the revision petition of respondents‑‑‑Contentions raised needed examination in view of the two conflicting judgments delivered by the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted. Government of N.‑W. F. P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 360 rel. Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
Government of N.‑W. F. P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC 360 rel. Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, who are real brothers, filed a suit for pre‑emption basing their claim to superior right on the assertion that they were co‑owners in the estate. The suit was decreed ex parte on 17‑7‑1982. The respondent applied to the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. His application was accepted and the trial Court then proceeded to try the suit on merits. By its judgment dated 3‑6‑1987, it dismissed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was accepted and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision. After the remand the trial Court decreed the suit on 14‑7‑1988. The respondent filed an appeal before the District judge but without any success. He then preferred a revision petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the revision petition and set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts on the ground that no decree could be passed in the suit after 31‑7‑1986, in view of the judgment in Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 SC
360. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that in this case a decree, even though ex parte, was passed on 17‑7‑1982 and that it was open to the petitioners to defend it despite the fact that it was later set aside. This was thus not a case where the decree was being passed for the first time after 31‑7‑1986, the target date specified in Malik Said Kamal Shah's case. It is also pointed that in Civil Revision No. 1650/D of 1989, the Lahore High Court has taken a view different from the learned Single Judge who accepted the revision petition in this case.
3. The contentions raised in this petition need examination particularly in view of the two conflicting judgments delivered by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The direction already given by this Court for maintenance of status quo with regard to possession to continue during the pendency of the appeal. A.A./G‑265/S Leave granted.