Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IDRIS VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD FEROZ BANGASHHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 446
1988 S C M R 446
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Wan Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD IDRIS Petitioner
versus
DR.MUHAMMAD FEROZ BANGASH and 2 others Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.18-R of 1986, decided on 3rd November, 1987.
(From judgment/order of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad dated 2-10-1985 in Civil Revision No.33 of 1980).
North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (XIV of 1950)--
---S.12--Suit for pre-emption--Limitation--Leave to appeal granted to examine whether plaintiffs' suits were time-barred and whether material evidence regarding issue of limitation had been misread.
M.Bilal and Mian Inamul Haq, Advocates Supreme Court and Ch.Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
M.H.Luqhmani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1987.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in this case of pre-emption by the vendee (petitioner) from judgment and decree dated 2-10-1985 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed, and the decree passed in favour of the respondents/ pre-emptors, was upheld.
Learned counsel has raised question of limitation only, on the ground that the time should have been held, in this case, to start from the date of delivery of possession, which the petitioner had established through documentary evidence which took place on 3-5-1974. If that were so, the suit filed by the two rival pre-emptors would have been barred by time. He has relied on an entry in the Khasra Girdawari, which supports him that on 3-5-1974 onward the possession, which was earlier with the vendors (as Kud Kashet was transferred to the vendee/ petitioner (through tenant).
Learned counsel for the caveator has taken us through evidence to show that notwithstanding the entry in the Khasra Girdawari which, undoubtedly, supports the petitioner, the High Court noticed this aspect and neutralized the effect thereof by making reference to admissions made by the attorney of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has contended that there is nothing the testimony of the attorney which would contradict the entries in the Khasra Girdawari and thus according to him, evidence has been misread.
Prima facie the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. We accordingly grant leave to appeal to examine whether the respondents' suits were time-barred and whether the material evidence regarding issue of limitation has been misread.
Security Rs.2,500/-.
Status quo meanwhile.
The amount deposited by the pre-emptors as pre-emption money shall be invested in Khas deposits, the profit whereof shall be received by the successful party.
S.Q./M-296/S Leave granted.