Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM JILANI VS Respondent: GHULAM MUHAMMAD
1988 S C M R 1905
1988 S C M R 1905
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
GHULAM JILANI and 3 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 7 others‑‑Respondents
civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.53‑Q of 1987, decided on 23rd May, 1988.
(From the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 12‑8‑1987 passed in C.R.65 of 1987).
(a) Muhammadan Law‑‑‑
‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Right of‑‑Talab‑e‑Ishhad and Talab‑e‑Mowasibat‑ Right of pre‑emption, exercise of‑‑Different views taken in two judgments of High Courts on the question of Talab‑e‑Ishhad and Talab‑e‑Mowasibat‑‑--Leave to appeal granted to resolve conflict of opinion expressed in two judgments. ‑‑‑
Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad P L D 1985 Kar.161 ref.
(b) Muhammadan Law‑‑‑
‑‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Right of‑‑Suit for possession through pre‑emption‑‑ Formality regarding Talab‑e‑Ishhad and Taiab‑e‑Mowasibat not having been effectively pressed by plaintiffs, suit dismissed and decision upheld in revision‑‑High Court having differed with view taken in an earlier judgment of another High Court leave to appeal granted to resolve conflict of opinion expressed in two judgments of High Courts. ‑‑
Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad P L D 1985 Kar.161 ref.
S.A.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption in respect of the disputed land situated in Mohal Karez Ibrahimzai, Mauza Sirki, Tappa Saddar Kansi, Tehsil Quetta, measuring 4 Rodes 27 Pols. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed in the suit was whether the plaintiffs had performed the Talab‑e‑Ishhad and Mowasibat. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31‑5‑1984 and so also the appeal of the petitioners by Additional District Judge vide Judgment dated 21‑4‑1987. The two decisions in the case were challenged by the petitioner in the High Court by means of a civil revision, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. The question as to whether necessary formalities regarding performance of Talab‑e‑Mowasibat and Talab‑e‑Ishhad had been effectively proved by the petitioners, was examined by the learned High Court. Reliance on behalf of the petitioners was placed in the case of Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad (P L D 1985 Karachi 161), but the learned Judge in the High Court diffared from the view taken in the said judgment. In the circumstances, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was necessary to resolve the conflict of opinion expressed in P L D 1985 Karachi 161 peso, the impugned judgment.
The contention, inter alia, requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500.
M.I./G‑125/S Leave granted