Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15 & 22

Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)------ Ss. 15 & 22 --- Deposit/security for Zar-e-Panjuin --- Omission to determine material issues in appeal --- Pre-emption suit was decreed by trial Court but District Judge in appeal set aside the decree on ground regarding deposit of/security for Zar-e-Punjam but maintained the findings on merits regarding superior right of pre-emption and estoppel etc.---High Court in appeal not only reversed the findings regarding deposit of/security for Zar-e-Punjain but restored the decree of the trial Court without giving hearing and determining other issues in the suit thus causing prejudice to vendee-appellant---Controversy regarding Zar-e-Punjain having been set at rest by Supreme Court earlier in a case the Court setting aside the order of restoration of decree remanded the case to High Court with certain directions for decision afresh on all issues arising in the case.Malik Barkat Ali Dogar v. Muhammad Shafi and others P L D 1990 S C 60 ref,JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.-- -This direct appeal arises out Of a pre-emption case. The appellant is the vendee/defendant. The respondents Suit was decreed in 1985. On appeal the decree in respondents' favour was set aside on technical ground regarding deposit of/security for the Zar-e-Panjurn. However, the District Court had upheld the judgment of the trial Court on other questions on merits relating, for example, to the superior right of pre-emption and estoppel. On respondents' appeal against the order of remand, before the High Court, the same was set aside on the finding that the, approach of the learned trial Judge regarding the question relating to the deposit of Zar-e-Panjum and/or substitution of the order for deposit by an order for security, was unexceptionable. The High Court, however, without determining any further issues relating to the merits of the case other than the question of Zar-e-Panjum while setting aside the appellate order, restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/pre-emptor. During the course of the arguments it transpired that the controversy in this case…