Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS Respondent: NABI BAKHSH
1988 S C M R 1578
1988 S C M R 1578
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others Petitioners
Versus
NABI BAKHSH and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.340 of 19$1, decided on 5th June, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 21‑2‑81 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.1595/D/80).
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑O.VII, R.11‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4 & 15‑ Court‑fee‑‑ Deficiency‑‑Contention that since pre‑emptors did not pay proper court‑fee within period prescribed for filing suit same was barred by time, answered by decision of Supreme Court reported as P L D 1984 S C 289, which was against petitioners‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Siddique Khan v . Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 rel.
(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 15‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Waiver‑‑Contention that pre‑emptors had waived their right of pre‑emption not accepted by High Court which set aside finding of First Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court‑‑Finding of High Court not suffering from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for 'Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In this petition for special leave to appeal which arises out of a pre‑emption suit, the vendees are before us. On their behalf, two contentions have been raised. The first is that the respondents had not paid the proper court‑fee within .the period prescribed for filing the suit and as such the suit was barred by time. The second is, that the respondents had waived their right of pre‑emption.
2. As regards the first contention, the decision of this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 is against them. So far as the plea of waiver is concerned, the trial Court recorded a finding against the petitioners. In first appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court. However, the High Court set aside the finding of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. We are not persuaded that the finding of the High Court suffers from any infirmity. Leave is refused.
M . Y . H . / M‑503/ S Leave to appeal refused.