Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 426 1992 SLD 426 1992 PLD 573
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.75 and Civil Petition No.390-L of 1991, decision dated: 31st March, 1992
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J., SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in both cases). Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Nos. 4 and 5 (in Civil Petition No. 390-L of 1991). Nemo for o

NOOR AHMAD

VS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, GUJRANWALA and 5 others

Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-------S.28---Appellant was one of the. pre-emptors on the alleged ground of tenancy under land reforms while respondent was a rival pre-emptor on usual grounds under the Act---Appellant filed a suit but the plaint was returned which was- presented before the Collector and his suit was decreed with the consent of the vendee therein without impleading respondent (the rival preemptor) ---Respondent (rival pre-emptor), held. would not at all be bound by the decree passed in favour of appellant unless he or his successors-in-interest were made parties to the suit of appellant. Muhammad Khan v. Abdul Khaliq Khan PLD 1981 SC 153; Zahoor Alam v. Fazal Hussain 1991 SCMR 763 and Syed Phul Shah v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1991 SC 1051 ref. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---These two matter--one a Civil Appeal and the other a petition, have arisen out of a case of pre-emption. The facts narrated at the Bar are: Noor Ahmed appellant/petitioner was one of the pre-emptors on the alleged ground of tenancy under land reforms while Allah Dad predecessor-in-interest of the respondents is a rival pre-emptor on usual grounds under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Noor Ahmed filed a suit before the Civil Court but the plaint was returned which was presented before the Collector. His suit was decreed on 7-12-1976 with the consent of the defendant/vendee therein without impleading Allah Dad therein. Earlier on jurisdictional technical question the matter had come to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction and an order was passed-on 22-6-1976; whereby, notice was taken of the other suit filed by Allah Dad. It was ordered to be stayed. The consent decree in favour of Noor Ahmed was brought under challenge by Allah Dad (during the time that his own suit remained stayed), before the higher forums on the revenue side upto the Board of Revenue but without any success. The successors-in-interest of Allah Dad who had in the meanwhile died then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which having been allowed on 10-4-1991 the decree in favour of Noor Ahmed was set aside and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision by impleading the rival…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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