1989 PLP 799 (CLC)
Before Akhtar Hassan, J Versus Dr. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 799 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hassan, J |
| Parties | Before Akhtar Hassan, J Versus Dr. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 799 (CLC)?
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 1989 PLP 799 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 799 (CLC) (Before Akhtar Hassan, J Versus Dr. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit decreed on 9‑2‑1988 on basis of pre‑emptors being owner in estate‑‑Such right of pre‑emption was declared by Supreme Court of Pakistan to be repugnant to injunctions of Islam and was to cease to operate by 31‑7‑1986‑‑In all such suits which had not been decreed b~' said date, no decree could be passed thereafter with regard to qualifications declared as repugnant by Supreme Court‑ ‑Pre‑empt or, therefore, could not retain the qualifi cation on third stage, viz. or, the date of decree. Mian Zaffar Yasin for the Applicant‑Respondent. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad with Mian Habib Ahmad Ansari for the Revision Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
being owner in estate‑‑Such right of pre‑emption was declared by Supreme Court of Pakistan to be repugnant to injunctions of Islam and was to cease to operate by 31‑7‑1986‑‑In all such suits which had not been decreed b~' said date, no decree could be passed thereafter with regard to qualifications declared as repugnant by Supreme Court‑ ‑Pre‑empt or, therefore, could not retain the qualifi cation on third stage, viz. or, the date of decree. Mian Zaffar Yasin for the Applicant‑Respondent. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad with Mian Habib Ahmad Ansari for the Revision Petitioners. By this C.M. it was sought to establish that the applicant‑decree holder had been able to get the decree executed and that he was entitled to be attorned to by the tenant.
2. The revision petitioners seriously contested .this contention pointing out that the proceedings showing delivery of Malkana Qabza to the applicant /decree7holder, were all a trash inasmuch as those were Farzi, fictitious and cooked up to deprive the revision petition evened from availing the possession of the land.
3. The whole complexion seems to have been diametrically changed. The latest decision of the Supreme Court holds that Shariat will apply to all pending cases in which the decree may not have been passed by 31‑7‑1986. In this case admittedly the decree held by the A applicant was not passed or; that date. In fact it was passed much later, that is on 9‑2‑198 when Shariat would be deemed to have been made applicable to this case. The decree was based upon the qualification of being owner in the estate. The Shariat did not recognise such a right in the context of pre‑emption and, therefore, the applicant could not possibly retain the qualification on the third stage namely, of the date of decree. The whole effort seems to have gone waste. The C . M . is dismissed.
4. Even the civil revision could have been disposed of finally today, but Mian M . Zaffar Yasin for the respondent points out that it is not formally fixed for hearing and that it may be taken up in the routine.
5. Relist. A . A . / R‑128/ L Application dismissed.