1989 PLP 1236 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR (Minor) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1236 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.2‑A as added by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Decree under Custom, against sale on ground of lack of consideration/legal necessity‑ Petitioner's contention that with the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1983, the law had changed and all decrees based on Custom stood annulled; that exception regarding past and closed transactions, and/or possession having been transferred as a result of such decree, was not applicable to the present case; that vendors not having died, decree had not yet come into operation‑‑Contentions raised on petitioner's behalf required examination‑‑Leave was granted. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR (Minor) and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1236 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1236 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.2‑A as added by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Decree under Custom, against sale on ground of lack of consideration/legal necessity‑ Petitioner's contention that with the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1983, the law had changed and all decrees based on Custom stood annulled; that exception regarding past and closed transactions, and/or possession having been transferred as a result of such decree, was not applicable to the present case; that vendors not having died, decree had not yet come into operation‑‑Contentions raised on petitioner's behalf required examination‑‑Leave was granted. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1236 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR (Minor) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑1‑1981 in Civil Revision No.1165‑D of 1980). ‑‑‑S.2‑A [as added by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)]‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Decree under Custom, against sale on ground of lack of consideration/legal necessity‑ Petitioner's contention that with the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1983, the law had changed and all decrees based on Custom stood annulled; that exception regarding past and closed transactions, and/or possession having been transferred as a result of such decree, was not applicable to the present case; that vendors not having died, decree had not yet come into operation‑‑Contentions raised on petitioner's behalf required examination‑‑Leave was granted. Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi P L D 1985 S C 407 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A usual decree under Custom, against a sale on the ground of lack of consideration/legal necessity, halving been granted the petitioner's (defendants') Civil Revision m that behalf was dismissed by the High Court. He has now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has relied on section 2‑A(b) of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983; to contend that the law has changed and all decrees like the one in question stand annulled. He has also stated that the exception regarding, past and closed transactions, and/or possession having been transferred as a result of such decree, is not applicable to the present case. According to him, the vendors not having died, the decree has not yet come into operation. He has also relied on Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi (P L D 1985 S C 407) in so far as the question of retrospective operation of the Ordinance of 1983 is concerned. The questions by the learned counsel require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. Status quo with regard to the property and its character shall be maintained by all concerned parties during the pendency of the matter in this Court. AA./A‑453/S Leave granted.