2000 PLP 1850 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1850 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Mamoon Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emotion Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1850 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emotion Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1850 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J., Munawar Ahmed Mirza and Mamoon Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1850 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NAZIR AHMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-dn-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-7-1997 passed in F. A. O. No. 196 of 1994).
S.35(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 203-H
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention that Supreme Court decision in Rana Muhammad Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Porvince reported as PLD 1994 SC 1 was not applicable to the case of petitioner as prior to taking effect of said decision, existing law in terms of Art.203-H of the Constitution would apply to the decision of the cases and petitioner's suit for pre-emotion having been filed during the interregnum would be governed by the period of one year. Rana Muhammad Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province PLD 1994 SC 1 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The respondent purchased 1/2 share in agricultural land measuring 109 Kanals and 14 Marlas situated in Chak No.282/JB, Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh through an oral sale for which Mutation No.244 was attested in his favour on 13-7-1988. The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emotion against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Gojra. The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that there subsisted no pre-emotive right to the petitioner. .
2. On 18-10-1990, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for the revival of the suit under section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emotion Ordinance, 1991 and subsequently, the suit was restored vide order, dated 26-5-1991. The respondent once again filed an application under Order VII, R.11, C.P.C., and this time on the ground that, the suit had become time barred which was accepted and the plaint was rejected vide order, dated 12-7-1993.
3. The petitioner, however, filed appeal against the said order, before the District Judge, which was allowed and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.
4. The respondent then filed appeal in the High Court against the appellate order of the District Court which was accepted and the judgment and the decree of the trial Court was restored. It was held by the learned Judge in the High Court that the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner after four months of the accrual of cause of action was not to be revived. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Rana Muhammad Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province (PLD 1994 SC 1).
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the said judgment was not applicable to the case of the petitioner as prior to taking effect of the said judgment, the existing law in terms of Article 203-H of the Constitution would apply to the decision of the cases and the petitioner's suit for pre-emption having been filed during the interregnum would be governed by the period of one year. Reference in this regard has also been made to section 35(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
6. As the question raised requires consideration, leave is granted. M.B.A./B-25/S Leave granted.