1994 PLP 1046 (SCMR)
SARFRAZ and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1046 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | SARFRAZ and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1046 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1046 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1046 (SCMR) (SARFRAZ and 7 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Civil Revision No. 1956‑D/80). Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that documents placed on file by the plaintiff/respondent, though unexhibited, were relied upon while those available on the file in support of the petitioner's cases were rejected, though it was for plaintiff/respondent to have proved his superior right of pre emption in preference to the petitioners through unambiguous evidence.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J: ‑‑Sale of land through registered deed dated 14‑1‑1978 in favour of the petitioners was pre‑empted by the respondent on the plea that he was a collateral of the vendor. Petitioners in their written statement specially did not plead that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants before the sale made in their favour but simply denied the plaintiff's superior right of pre‑emption, in respect of the suit land. The learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit with the observation that the pedigree table placed on file were discrepant and it was for the petitioners to have clarified it. The learned Additional District Judge on hearing the appeal against the judgment and decree feeling his inability to give a correct finding on the issue in the light of the documents placed on file and exhibited as evidence in the case, took judicial notice of other documents placed on file, but not exhibited, maintained the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The learned appellate Court, however, held that the petitioners have been recorded tenants in cultivating possession of various Khasra numbers in their individual capacity but that was not helpful to them as it being a joint sale in their favour the principle of sinker was attracted to their case and they could not be given the benefit of their having the first right of pre‑emption as against the plaintiff/pre‑emptor. The learned High Court, however, dismissed their revision petition on another ground that the copies of Khasra Girdawaris, in which the petitioners are recorded as tenants in cultivating possession of the suit land have not been placed on file by the order of the Court and that the same having not been exhibited could not be relied upon in support of their plea. It was contended by the learned counsel that approach of the learned High Court is inconsistent as the documents placed on the file by the plaintiff/respondent, though unexhibited, were relied while those available on the file in support of the petitioners' case were rejected, though it was for the plaintiff/respondent to have provide his superior right of pre‑emption in preference to the petitioners' through unambiguous evidence. Leave is granted to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. M.B.A./S‑845/S Leave granted.