Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: NIAZ ALI
1988 S C M R 1652
1988 S C M R 1652
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
CIVIL PETITION No.234 OF 1985
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Petitioner versus NIAZ ALI and others‑‑Respondent
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 12‑1‑1985 in Civil Revision No.1410 of 1978):
CIVIL PETITION No.306 OF 1985
Haji BARKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
FAZAL‑‑Respondent
(Against the Judgment and order of the Lahore High' Court, dated 11‑2‑1985 in R.F.A. No.36 of 1982):
CIVIL PETITION No.392 OF 1985
Mst. BHIRAWANA and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos.234, .306 and 392 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1988.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑No decree having been passed in favour of any of pre‑emptors before 31‑7‑1986, the same cannot now be passed in their favour in view of P L D 1988 S C 287‑‑Petitions having become infructuous, dismissed. Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C 287 rel.
Ch.Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for petitioners (in C.P. No.234 of 1985).
Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mohammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitions (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
Masood Javaid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.392 of 1985).
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No.306 of 1985).
Nemo for Respondents (in C.Ps.Nos. 234 and 392 of 1988).
Date of hearing: 31st May, 1988.
ORDER.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed by vendees in separate pre‑emption matters.
Their learned counsel have stated that no decree having been passed in favour of any of the respondent/ pre‑emptors before 31‑7‑1986, the same cannot now be passed in their favour.
The position taken by the learned counsel is correct and has the support of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali P L D 1988 S C 287. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioners, however, may now raise the plea before the Court concerned where the matters might now be pending.
M . I . / M‑500 / S Petitions dismissed.