Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BAQAR VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN
1988 S C M R 1567
1988 S C M R 1567
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
BAQAR and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.710 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 6‑4‑1985 in R.S.A. No.69 of 1985).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Defective description of suit property‑‑Clerical/ technical omission in plaint‑‑Effect of‑‑Petitioners‑vendees alleging partial pre‑emption by respondent‑‑Dismissal of Second Appeal challenged‑‑Plea that respondent‑pre‑emptor's plaint was defective in so far as description of suit property was concerned, repelled Being a clerical/ technical omission it could not be made use of by trendees so as to non‑suit the respondent on the ground of partial pre emption‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Naeem‑ur‑Rehman v. Mohamad Anwar 1986 S C M R 1488 rel.
S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record
for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 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 Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
The learned counsel for petitioners while admitting that the petitioners have failed throughout with regard to the alleged partial pre‑emption by the respondent, has however, contended that the respondent's plaint was defective in so far as the description of the suit property is concerned. Therefore, the suit should have been dismissed on ground of partial pre‑emption.
After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that it was a clerical/ technical omission which could not be made use of by the vendees so as to non‑suit the respondent on the ground of partial pre‑emption. The judgment of this Court in the case of Naeem‑ur‑Rehman v. Mohammad Anwar 1986 S C M R 1488 as admitted by the learned counsel, goes against the petitioners' case. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.
M.I./B‑61/S Petition dismissed.