Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLD 1990 Supreme Court 897

SULTAN and anothers vs HABIB AHMAD and others

CitationPLD 1990 Supreme Court 897
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Naimuddin, Nasim Hasan Shah, Ajmal Mian, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry,
ResultAppeals allowed

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the question of law involved in both of them is common.

(1) Civil Appeal No,528/1988 (Sultan v. Habib Ahmad etc.): ' This is an appeal by a vendee in a pre-emption matter against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court vide order dated 19-6-1988.

2. ' The learned High Court, in its impugned judgment held that since the pre-emption right of co- sharer has survived the scrutiny made in Said Kamal Shah's case reported as PLD 1986 SC 360 the suit of the respondent based on such a right could be decreed even after the target date i.e, 31-7- 1986. This view is no longer tenable in view of the latest judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench dated 26-5-1990 (PLD 1990 SC 865) and in so far as the respondent-pre-emptor was not granted the decree for pre-emption at any stage by any Court before 31-7-1986. Accordingly, his suit could not be decreed thereafter. In our judgment of even date in the case of Mst. Aziz Begum etc. v.

3. Federation of Pakistan (Civil Petition No,1-R of 1988) [PLD 1990 SC 899] we have held that the aforementioned judgment must be given effect to in accordance with its tenor.

4. ' This appeal, accordingly, must succeed and is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent for pre-emption shall stand dismissed. No costs.

(2) Civil Appeal No,63/1989 (Ch.Barkat Ali v. Bagh Ali): ' In this case, the pre-emption suit was filed by a co-sharer. However, this suit based on his superior right on the ground of being co-sharer of the suit land was decreed by the trial Court for the first time on 13-12-1987. This could not have been done as explained in the recent judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench on 26-5-1990 (PLD 1990 SC 865).

5. ' This appeal must succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The decree in favour of the pre-emptor is set aside and the suit shall stand dismissed. No costs.

6. ' The upshot is that both these appeals are allowed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

7. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--I agree but for different reasons which are given in my separate note.

8. ' (Sd.) Naimuddin, J. Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J. Ajmal Mian, J.

Cited by 13 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search