Pre-Emption decree

2024 YLR 482 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 47Executing Court, powers ofMortgaged propertyPre-emption decreeInexecutability, issue of

Objection petition was filed before the Executing Court by the original-owners/mortgagors to the extent of certain part of suit-property being mortgaged property ('mortgaged property')

Executing Court accepted the objection and held that pre-emption decree was not executable to the extent of mortgaged property on the ground that said land did not lawfully belong to the vendor

Appellate Court maintained the order passed by the Executing Court

Before independence, admittedly, mortgaged property owned by non-evacuee local Muslim owners was mortgaged to non-Muslim evacuees, which was wrongly treated as evacuee property and was allotted thereafter; and further sold by the allottee (predecessor of the objection-petitioners) to the vendor (pre-emptors/decree-holder) who, in turn, sold it to vendees that triggered the pre-emption proceedings

Contention of the petitioners (pre-emptors/decree-holders) was that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below in accepting the objections of the respondents)original-owners/mortgagors) amounted to navigating beyond the decree as the Executing Court could not go behind the decree

Validity

Although the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree and it was obligated to adhere to the decree as it came before it for execution but said rule was not an absolute and invariable of law rather the same was subject to certain exceptions

Issue of the inexecutability could have been validly raised in the execution proceedings as the pre-emption decree to the extent of land falling in the ownership of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (objection petitioners) could not have been passed and was null and void to that extent as the same never fell in the ownership of the vendees

Concomitantly, the execution of the decree passed in a pre-emption suit had been rightly refused to the extent of the land redeemed by the respondents (objection petitioners) and not in the ownership of the vendees to which right of pre-emption could have been exercised

No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below allowing objection petition filed by the original-owners/mortgagors to the extent of mortgaged property

Revision filed by the decree-holders was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 MLD 478 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Pre-emption decreeExecution proceedingsLimitation, computation ofPrinciplePetitioner/decree holder filed suit for recovery of possession through pre-emption which was decreed in his favourExecution petition filed by petitioner/decree holder was dismissed by Executing Court and Lower Appellate CourtValidityProvision of O. XX, R. 14, C.P.C. were mandatory in natureDecree for preemption was conditional degree where petitioner/decree holder was to fulfill two conditions

Firstly, petitioner/decree holder was to deposit in Court purchase money together with costs if any, decreed against him and secondly deposit was to be made on or before the date fixed by Court

Such provision of C.P.C. contained penal consequences of dismissal of suit in case petitioner/decree holder failed to make payment of purchase money in Court on or before the date fixed in decree

Once petitioner/decree holder performed his part of obligation as per directions contained in decree, then he automatically had become owner of the property and was entitled for possession

Concerned revenue authorities were bound to implement decree for the purpose of record of rights without any order from Executing Court

In case authorities concerned failed to do the needful, then petitioner/decree holder could file application for execution of decree

In such circumstances, time for the purpose of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of default in performance of obligation by revenue authorities

High Court directed Executing Court to execute decree in favour of petitioner/decree holder and set aside judgments and orders passed by two Courts below

Revision was allowed accordingly.

1991 MLD 1212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.48, 49, 50, 59 & 60West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, R. 85(2)Penalty for renewal of permits

Levying of such penalty on application for fresh permit, where previously a permit stood granted for the vehicle in question

Grant of fresh permit on a different application in respect of a different route, whether to be considered as renewal of previous permit, so as to attract applicability of R. 85(2), West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969

Rule 85(2), West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 applied to renewal and not to grant of fresh permits

Grant of fresh permit and renewal of permit have different connotations.

1986 MLD 2039 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.144Pre-emption decreeSetting aside of, by Supreme Court- Restitution of suit propertyApplication forCompetency of-Supreme Court reversed pre-emption decree passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Courts

Even if Supreme Court while reversing decree and remanding case to Trial Court did not refer to question of restitution of suit property to judgment-debtor, nothing, held, would prevent judgment-debtor from moving application for restitution of suit property under 5.144, C.P.C. before Court of first instance.

1982 SCMR 1024 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15 & 21 - Pre-emption decree - Not affected by anything happening subsequently - Sale pre-emptible and cause of action accruing to respondent to file pre-emption suit under S. 21 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, when sale completed-Decree for declaration, held, cannot bind pre-emptor, subsequent suit being a device to defeat pre-emption decree.