Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL AZIZ VS Respondent: SAGHIR KHAN
1988 S C M R 1491
1988 S C M R 1491
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Appellant
versus
SAGHIR KHAN‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.1198 of 1981, decided on 25th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑11‑1981 in F . A .O. No.90/ 1981) .
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Vendees seeking leave to appeal against dismissal of their first appeal by High Court against the remand order by First Appellate Court‑‑No decree had been passed in favour of respondents/pre emptors prior to 31‑7‑1986‑‑No decree, held, could be passed on any ground whatsoever in such a case pending since before that date‑ Petition having become infructuous, dismissed.
Malik Said Kamal Shah's case P L D 1986 S C 360 and Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287 ref.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their first appeal by the High Court against a remand order by the first appellate Court.
Learned counsel states that no decree has been passed in favour of the respondent /pre‑emptor so far at any stage prior to 31‑7‑1986 when the judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 came into effect. That being so, he has further argued that no decree can now be passed on any ground whatsoever in such a case pending since before that date, as held by this Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others P L D 1988 S C 287.
We agree with the position taken by the learned counsel. This petition is, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous with the observation that the same plea may be taken by the petitioner before the Court where the suit might now be pending.
M.I./A‑247/S. Petition dismissed.