Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AKBAR VS Respondent: SAIRA BIBI
1988 S C M R 449
1988 S C M R 449
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
AKBAR and others--Petitioners
versus
SAIRA BI BI--Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.746 of 1986, decided on 22nd December, 1987.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12-7-1986 in Civil Revision No.1578/D of 1986).
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--
---S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption suit- -Pre-emption decree passed in favour of respondent--Leave to appeal--Plea that ground on which respondent succeeded required that pre-emptor and vendor should be Muslims and there being no assertion or proof on the record in that behalf, decree should be set aside, having not been taken at proper stage, was rejected--Leave to appeal refused.
(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--
-S.21--Pre-emption suit--Decree passed before 31-7-1986 (date specified by Supreme Court vide P L D 1986 S C 360) would not be hit by said judgment same being not retrospective in operation.
Government of N.W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S C 360 and' Muhammad Masood Khan Bhatti v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima 1987 S C M R 1206 ref.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Qamar-ur-Din Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1987.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 12-7-1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners,/ vendees' Civil Revision arising out of a pre emption decree passed in respondent's favour, was dismissed.
Learned counsel has pressed only two grounds; One, that the decree, though having been passed before 31-7-1986, would be hit by the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 S C 360). He has argued that though the judgment became effective on 31-7-1986, it would have retrospective operation so as to annul the decree, in this case. Secondly, he contended that the ground on which the respondent succeeded required that the plaintiff /pre-emptor and the vendor should be Muslims and there being no assertion or proof on the record in this behalf, the decree should have been sell aside.
The first ground is not available to the petitioners. This Court has held it in a number of cases including Muhammad Masood Khan Bhatti v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima (1987 S C M R 1206).
The second ground is an afterthought. This objection was not taken at the proper stage. It is accordingly repelled.
This petition has no force and is dismissed.
M.B.A./A-151/S Petition .dismissed.