1988 PLP 1390(2) (SCMR)
ALIMUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1390(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALIMUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1390(2) (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 1988 PLP 1390(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1390(2) (SCMR) (ALIMUDDIN and others — Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1988.
- S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-2-1982 passed in Writ Petition No.6518 of 1980).
S.21--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.22(1)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit--Land purchased by petitioners jointly--Sale was oral one and mutation was attested--Order of attesting officer though recited names of all the three brothers (petitioners) specifically yet in the concluding line of the order he inadvertently omitted one of them namely "Q"--Respondent, misled by such omission did not implead "Q" as one of the defendants initially--Respondent, however, after the expiry of period of limitation, impleaded "Q" also- Petitioners raised objection that as "Q" had been impleaded after the period of limitation, the suit of the respondent was barred by time and reliance was placed on S.22(1), Limitation Act, 1908 and it was urged that so far as "Q" was concerned suit was barred by time, since the sale was not divisible the suit could not proceed against the other petitioner as well--Leave to appeal was granted to examine question involved.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners who are brothers purchased 24 kanals of land in village Kakki Nau, Tehsil Shorkot. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre‑emption before the Collector on the ground that he was a tenant in the land in question. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. They then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was accepted and the respondent's suit was dismissed. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order of the Board of Revenue. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Board of Revenue to be without legal effect. The petitioners now. seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. Admittedly, the land was purchased by the petitioners jointly The sale was an oral ore and the mutation was attested on 19‑4‑1973 Although the order of the attesting officer did recite the names of all of the three brothers specifically yet in the concluding line of the order he inadvertently omitted one of them, namely, Qutbi. Perhaps misled by this omission the respondent did not implead Qutbi as one of the defendants initially. However, after the period of limitation had expired, he got Qutbi also impleaded. The petitioners raised an objection that as Qutbi had been impleaded after the period of the limitation, the suit of the respondent was barred by tire. This plea did not find favour with the Collector and the Additional Commissioner but it was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The High Court, however, set aside the decision of the Board.
3. In support of this petition, reliance is placed on section 22(1) of the Limitation Act and it is urged that so far as Qutbi was concerned the suit was barred by time. Since the sale was not divisible the suit could not proceed against the other petitioners as well.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for cost in the sum of Rs.5,
000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record, with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M .B . A. /A‑250/S Leave granted.