1990 PLP 857 (SCMR)
Hakim GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents'
| Citation | 1990 PLP 857 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Hakim GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents' |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 857 (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 857 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 857 (SCMR) (Hakim GHULAM HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus KARAMAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1990
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 17‑10‑1989, passed in R.S. A. No. 128 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑During pendency of pre emption suit between petitioner/pre‑emptor and respondents/vendees, vendor brought declaratory suit against vendees claiming that sale in their favour being violation of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) was void‑‑‑Consent decree was passed in that suit in favour of vendor and he was made party to pre‑emption suit which was decreed by Trial Court in favour of petitioner/pre‑emptor and on filing appeal against judgment and decree of Trial Court by vendees, Appellate Court affirmed decree of Trial Court and dismissed appeal of vendees‑‑‑Sale in favour of vendees/respondents having been declared void on basis of consent decree, they were left with no interest in suit land and as such had no right to file appeal against pre‑emption decree passed by Trial Court in favour of petitioner‑‑ High Court, in ignoring that aspect of case, held, had wrongly allowed second appeal‑‑‑Case requiring examination, leave to appeal, granted.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th January, 1990 S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 17‑10‑1989, whereby, R.S.A. No. 128 of 1983 of the respondents was accepted. The respondents 'purchased the land in dispute from one Faiz Muhammad son of Allah Din for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000 vide mutation No.3052 attested on 30‑5‑1969. The petitioner on the basis of co‑sharer and owner in the estate claimed his superior rights and pre‑empted the said sale before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Leiah. During the pendency of the suit Faiz Muhammad vendor brought a declaratory suit claiming that the sale in favour of the vendees being violative of the M.L.R.64, was thus void. A consent decree was passed and under such circumstances Faiz Muhammad vendor was made a party to the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge trained contesting issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioner in his favour on 13‑1‑1982. Appeal and application for additional evidence of the vendees/respondents before the District Court were both dismissed on 29‑6‑1983. Regular Second Appeal of the respondents before the High Court was allowed on 17‑10‑1989 and their case was remanded to the Addl. District Judge for disposal on its merits. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the sale in favour of the vendees/respondents was on their consent declared void, hence. they have left no interest in the suit land and thus losing their interest have no right to file an appeal before the District Judge against the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances the vendor being a necessary party and having interest in the disputed property was impleaded as defendant in the suit but the respondents failed to implead him as respondent in appeal against the decree passed in the pre‑emption suit, thus the appeal, not being properly constituted, was rightly dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while ignoring this aspect of the case has wrongly allowed the second appeal. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, feel satisfied that the contention raised by him makes the case arguable which requires examination of this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted. Proceeding before the trial Court is stayed during the pendency of this appeal. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any. H.B.T./G‑262/S Leave granted.