1987 PLP 1497 (SCMR)
Mst. MARYAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NIAZI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1497 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MARYAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NIAZI and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1497 (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 1987 PLP 1497 (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 1497 (SCMR) (Mst. MARYAM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus NIAZI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2‑3‑1987 in Civil Revision No. 361 of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit based on co‑ownership in Khata and being collaterals of vendors‑ Plea of co‑ownership in Khata not pressed by petitioners/ pre‑emptors while no evidence produced to prove relationship of being collaterals with vendor‑‑Permission to place copy of pedigree‑table on record refused by First Appellate Court and such order upheld by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused on ground that decision of First Appellate Court in refusing to receive pedigree table in evidence did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Plea of being co‑sharers in Khata having been given up, could not be reagitated before Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 2‑3‑1987 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of Hafiz Muhammad Nawaz who together with a number of other persons brought a suit for pre‑emption arising out of as of agricultural land. The superior right claimed in the suit was based on grounds of co‑ownership in the Khata of which the land in dispute formed a part and relationship with the vendor. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The pre‑emptors preferred an appeal before the District Judge. In the appeal the ground of co‑ownership in the Khata was not pressed. The learned District Judge found that the pre‑emptors had led no evidence to show that they were collaterals of the vendor. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. The pre‑emptors then filed a regular second appeal in the High Court which was later converted into a revision petition. The High Court found no fault with the finding of the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
3. It appears that while the appeal was pending before the District Judge an application was made by the pre‑emptors that they should be permitted to place on record copy of a pedigree table which supported their assertion with regard to relationship with the vendor. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that even though the suit had remained pending before the trial Court for 41 years the pre‑emptors had not cared to place the pedigree table on the record. The High Court declined to reverse the decision of the learned District Judge in this regard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the pre‑emptors had any acceptable explanation' in not producing the pedigree table as part of their evidence before the trial Court. That being so, the decision of the learned District Judge in refusing to receive the pedigree table in evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. Admittedly apart from the said document there was no evidence showing that the pre‑emptors were collaterals of the vendor. As regards the plea that one of the pre‑emptors was also a co‑sharer in the Khata it cannot be registered after it was expressly given up before the District Judge. We do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. A.A./M‑128/S Petition dismissed.