Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZ VS Respondent: YOUSAF
1988 S C M R 1999
1988 S C M R 1999
Present: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
AZIZ and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
YOUSAF‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.655 of 1988, decided on 1st August, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 12‑6‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in C.R. No.1089‑D of 1988).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question that even though parties were Christians, yet in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Government of N. ‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360, no decree could be passed in favour of the pre‑emptor after 31‑7‑1986, unless the requirements of "Talab" and "Taqaza" were fulfilled.
Government of N. ‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 ref.
Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit which was decreed by the trial Court on 22‑7‑1987. The decree was affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court declined to interfere with it in revisional jurisdiction. The vendees seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Even though the parties are Christians of Roman Catholic denomination, it is contended on behalf of the vendees that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Shariat Appellate Bench in Government of N. ‑W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360, no decree could be passed in favour of the pre‑emptor after 31‑7‑1986 unless the requirements of 'Talab' and 'Taqaza' were fulfilled. It was not so in the present case and as such the decree passed in favour of the pre‑emptor.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. The direction with regard to maintenance of status quo to continue.
M.B.A/A‑335/S Leave granted