1989SCMR1261 (PLP)
GUL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1261 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1261 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1261 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1261 (PLP) (GUL MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Idrees, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 12‑4 1981, passed in Writ Petition No.354 of 1981). ‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit Court fee‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether pre‑emptor had, under the law to pay court‑fees to the extent the suit decreed or in respect of the land sold.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 12‑4‑1981.
2. Land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas situate in Mauza Pipli, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, was purchased by respondents 1 to 4 through a registered sale‑deed for an ostensible price of Rs. 30,
000. The petitioner was a tenant over 31 kanals 12 marlas out of the abovementioned land and filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption on the basis of superior right of pre‑emption as a tenant. The suit was contested but ultimately the Assistant Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, decreed the suit of the petitioner for 31 kanals 12 marlas vide order dated 29‑4‑1980. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, and it was during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioner was directed to pay court‑fee in terms of Finance Act, 1973. The requisite court‑fee was deposited but the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the appeal of the respondents vide order dated 31‑1‑1981. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 5‑3‑1981 and the writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the orders of the Courts below. While repelling the contention of the petitioner in the High Court, the learned Judge observed: "The petitioner had instituted proceedings in respect of the entire land measuring 10‑1 kanals 11 marlas purchased by respondents No.l to
4. He was liable to pay court‑fee on the entire claim put forward by him. The fact that his claim of pre‑emption was allowed only to the extent of 31 kanals 12 marlas by the Court was irrelevant for purposes of payment of court‑fee."
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner m the light of the above finding the question to be considered in this case is whether the petitioner/pre‑emptor has, under the law, to pay court‑fee to the extent the suit decreed or in respect of the land sold. We thus grant leave in the matter. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M.B.A./G‑187/S Leave granted.