1989 PLP 3214 (MLD)
NAWAB DIN Petitioner Versus QAIS ABDUR RASHID Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3214 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil--ur-Rehman Khan, J |
| Parties | NAWAB DIN Petitioner Versus QAIS ABDUR RASHID Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)- |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3214 (MLD)?
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 3214 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil--ur-Rehman Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3214 (MLD) (NAWAB DIN Petitioner Versus QAIS ABDUR RASHID Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4 & 15--Pre-emption decree--Maintainability of Pre-emptor/although established his superior right. of pre-emption on basis of being co-sharer and owner in estate, but .admittedly had failed to make talabs at relevant time in mode prescribed by injunctions of Islam-Judgment and decree finally passed in favour of pre-emptor after 31-7-1987,-held could not be sustained in view of Supreme Court judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case reported as PLD 1986 SC
360. Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360; Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh 1988 SCMR 1799 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC 701 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment will dispose of the present revision petition as well as Civil Revision No.1377-D of 1988 as the questions of law and facts involved in both these matters are common.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are that the respondent in both these petitions filed two suits for possession through pre- emption against the petitioner claiming superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being co-sharer, owner in the estate and contiguity. The suits were resisted by the petitioner but as the respondent was able to substantiate his claim of being co-sharer the learned trial Court decreed the suits on 28-3-1987. On appeals of the petitioner these judgments and decrees were not interfered with by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur and the same were maintained vide judgments and decrees, dated 13-7-1988. Hence these revision petitions.
3. Mr. Aslam Shahid .Advocate has filed powers on behalf of the respondent but today has not turned up. In these circumstances the revision petitions have been heard ex parte. The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suits even on the ground of co-sharer could not be decreed after 31-7-1987 in view of the judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 as there was no averment in the plaints that the pre-emptor-plaintiff had made talabs at the relevant time in the mode prescribed by Islamic jurisprudence.
4. I have gone through the plaints and find that no averment was made therein as to the making of talabs in the mode prescribed by Islamic Jurisprudence. This plea stands further supported by the cases of Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh 1988 SCMR 1799 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC
701. In view of above the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees, dated 28-3-1987 passed by the learned trial Court and the judgments and decrees, dated 13-7-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside with the result that the suits stand dismissed. The revision petitions thus succeed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./N-234/L Revision accepted.