1989 PLP 1098 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 4 others‑‑Appellants Versus MAKHDOOM ALAM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1098 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Choudhary, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 4 others‑‑Appellants Versus MAKHDOOM ALAM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1098 (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 1098 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Choudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1098 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 4 others‑‑Appellants Versus MAKHDOOM ALAM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Habib Ahmad Ansari for Appellants.
- Syed Mumtaz Ahmad Gillani for Respondent. `
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1989. '
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑‑Pre‑emption suit decreed for the first time by lower Appellate Court on 13‑4‑1988‑ Legality‑‑No decree in pre‑emption suit can be passed on any ground after 31st July, 1986 on the ratio of rule laid down by Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir's case reported as PLD 1988 SC 701‑‑Judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court dated 13‑4‑1988 was set aside and pre‑emption suit was dismissed by High Court in second appeal. Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287; Muhammad Shoib v. Member (Revenue) PLD 1988 SC 355; Aiwaz Khan and another v Allah Bakhsh PLD 1988 SC 730 and Sher Muhammad v . Allah Ditta PLD 1988 SC 412 rel.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal filed by the vendee. The admitted position is that the suit of the respondent was decreed for the first time by lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13‑4‑1988. 2. 1t is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that suit could not have been decreed after 31‑7‑1986 in view of the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287; Muhammad Shoib v. Member (Revenue) PLD 1988 SC 355 and Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh PLD 1988 SC 730.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has nothing to canvass.
4. The legal position is that the decree in the pre‑emption suit cannot be passed on any ground after 31‑7‑1986. In this behalf reference can be placed to the case of Ghulam Qadir v . Nawab Din A PLD 1988 SC
701. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: ‑ It is reported as Shoib and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others, PLD 1988 SC
355. It was clearly held that "no decree can be passed now after the said date in favour of the pre‑emptor on any ground co‑ownership, contiguity etc" .....When the Court observed that no Talabs were made, it was also meant to convey that in the context of the then existing pre‑emption laws, the Talabs were not only unnecessary and thus were not made, but also, that they could not have been made due to the peculiarities and strictness of the relevant law in this behalf. Said order of the Supreme Court is, Sher Muhammad v. Allah Ditta PLD 1988 SC
412. The following observations therein fully demonstrate how we felt about the frivolous claims regarding Islamic Talabs:‑ "It is admitted that so far no decree has been passed in their favour. It is not claimed that the requirement of as in Islam was fulfilled these cases. In C.P.S.L.A. No 747 of 1983, learned counsel or the petitioners had not even hear the expression 'Talabs That being so, no decree can now be passed in their in figment court in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (C.A. No.208 of 1980, decided on 2‑5‑1 R8; PLD 198 These petitions are accordingly dismissed."
5. The result is that I accept this appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 13‑4‑1988 and dismiss the suit of the respondent. However, there is no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1201/L Appeal accepted.