Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 12,23

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss. 13 23---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 11---Demand of talbs---No right of pre-emption in respect of certain properties---Rejection of plaint---Controversy requiring recording of evidence---Scope---Plaintiff instituted suit claiming that the defendants had purchased the plot over which he had superior right of pre-emption filed application for rejection of plaint on the grounds that only occupancy rights were transferred; the plot formed part of the property vested in the Development Authority; that certificate of ownership was not issued as such the transaction did not amount to sale so as to activate any right of pre-emption and that the suit was barred by provisions of S. 23 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. found favour with the Trial Court which rejected the plaint and in appeal the order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court---Validity---Controversy which emerged from pleadings could only be resolved after relevant documents were brought on record which included record of Development Authority and the terms and conditions of assigning of occupancy rights under the scheme of the Development Authority--- Another question which would require consideration was as to whether the transaction could be deemed to be in respect of property acquired or owned by the Development Authority and, if so, could the suit be maintained in view of the bar of S. 23(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Rejection of plaint at the stage was not permissible nor conclusive view as to the nature of transaction could be taken without evidence---High Court held that the proper course was to frame issue, allow the parties to lead evidence and thereafter determine the questions in accordance with law---Case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh after allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issue---Appeal was allowed, accordingly. Abdul Karim v. Fazal Muhammad Shah PLD 1967 SC 411; Muhammad Siddique and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 2012 SCMR 1387; Aziz Hussain and 2 others v. Rashid Ahmad and 3 others 1992 SCMR 1018; Muhammad Ismail Qureshi…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492