1997CLC361 (PLP)
SADDAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997CLC361 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar. |
| Bench Members | Zeenat Khan, J |
| Parties | SADDAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997CLC361 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997CLC361 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar. bench comprising: Zeenat Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997CLC361 (PLP) (SADDAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Waris Khan for Petitioner.
- Haji Muhammad Alam for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.13 & 35‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption filed under repealed Act i.e. North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1950‑‑ No decree having ever been passed in favour of plaintiff/pre‑emptor till 31‑7‑1986 no decree could be passed in favour of plaintiff thereafter unless his suit was instituted under provisions of North‑West Frontier Province Pre emption Act, 1987 condition precedent for enforcing right of pre‑emption under S.13 of the North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1987 was performance of ' Talabs' and that condition having not been fulfilled by pre emptor, his suit for pre‑emption, could not proceed‑‑‑Suit filed by pre‑emptor, was .rightly dismissed by Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
3. The perusal of the plaint and its averment would show that this suit for enforcing the right of pre‑emption was instituted on 30‑1‑1983 under the provisions of N.‑W.F.P Preemption Act XIV of 1950. The said Act was repealed by section 35(1) of N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act No.X of 1987. For ready reference section 35 with all its subsections is reproduced as under:‑ "35‑Real. ‑‑(1) The North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1950 (N.‑W.F.P. XIV of 1950) is hereby repealed. (2) In the cases and appeals filed under the law referred to in subsection (1) in which judgments and decrees passed by the Courts have become final, further proceedings if any relating to such cases and appeals, shall, notwithstanding the repeal of such law be governed and continued in accordance with the provisions thereof. (3) All other cases and appeals not covered under subsection (2) and instituted under the law, referred to in subsection (1) and, which immediately before the commencement of this Act were pending before a Court shall lapse and suits of the pre‑emptors shall stand dismissed, except those in which right of pre‑emption is claimed under the provisions of this Act. "
5. It is pertinent to note that no decree was ever passed in favour of the plaintiff‑pre‑emptor till 31‑7‑1986, therefore, no decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff thereafter unless his suit is instituted under the provisions of Act A No.X of 1987.
6. Under section 13 of the Act the conditions precedent for enforcing the right of pre‑emption are 'Talabs'. Section 13 of the Act is reproduced as under:‑‑ "
13. Demand of pre‑emption.‑‑(1) The right of pre‑emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demand of pre‑emption in the following order, namely:‑‑ (a) Talb‑i‑muwathibat; (b) talb‑i‑ishhad; and (c) talb‑e‑khusumat.
7. Since the plaintiff has failed to incorporate in his plaint the fact m of 'Talbs', therefore, his suit cannot stand on legal footings. There was no need of framing an additional issue as it is lacking altogether in the plaint In such situation, the evidence if produced, will be of no avail.
8. Viewing the case from any angle in the light of the aforesaid reasons the suit of the plaintiff cannot succeed and the findings of both the Courts below are unexceptional to be interfered with under section 115, C.P.C.
9. Resultantly the present revision petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. In peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./1883/P Revision dismissed.