| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 1069 1999 SLD 1069 1999 CLC 1854 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1105 of 1992, heard on 6-11-1997
NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1105 of 1992, heard on 6-11-1997
NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
VS
ALLAH YAR KHAN and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Muhammadan Law------- Pre-emption---Interregnum period---Petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption on 5-8-1989---Talbs were made in accordance with law---Maintainability of suit--.Suit for pre-emption dismissed on the ground that there was no codified law--Validity---Suit for pre-emption was maintainable if same was in accordance with principles of Islamic Law of Pre-emption ---Petition was allowed in circumstances. Hazoor Bakhsh and 3 others v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajanpur and another 1992 CLC 61; Mst. Safia Begum v. Ibrahim and others PLD 1989 SC 314 and Haji Rana Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab Province PLD 1994 SC 1 ref. (b) Muhammadan Law- ---- Pre-emption---Prerequisite---Where "Talbs" for enforcement ref right of preemption were made strictly in accordance with the principles of Islamic Law of Pre-emption suit could not have been dismissed at initial stage---Dismissal of suit on assumption of non-existence of codified law of pre-emption was without lawful authority and jurisdiction---Case was remanded by High Court to Trial Court for decision on merit in circumstances. JUDGMENT This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question, the orders, dated 24-9-1991, of respondent No.3. 2. A suit for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner; to pre-empt sale of land measuring 5 Kanals, 10 Marlas, effected through Mutation No.337, dated 20-4-1989, on the ground of being co-sharer in Khata and common easement. 3. During the pendency of suit, respondent No. 1, filed an application for rejection of plaint, on the ground that no law of pre-emption was invogue at the time of filing of this suit and, therefore, the petitioner could not maintain a suit for pre-emption. The application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, vide order, dated 15-6-1991. 4. A revision petition was filed against order, dated 15-6-1991, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and in consequence, the suit for pre-emption was dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge, took the view,. that Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1913 had already been declared repugnant to the Injunction of…
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