Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BAHADUR KHAN VS Respondent: NOOR MUHAMMAD
1988 S C M R 1659
1988 S C M R 1659
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
BAHADUR KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
NOOR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.458 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 31‑3‑1985 in R.S.A. No.56 of 1985).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.4 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Misreading of plaint‑ Petitioners' claim to superior right of pre‑emption on assertion that they were co‑sharer in the Khata, not substantiated‑‑Petitioners, in appeal claimed superior right on basis of ownership in the estate‑ District Judge rejected the plea as this was not the basis on which they had come to Court‑‑High Court declined to interfere‑‑Contention raised before Supreme Court that if their plaint was properly construed it would become clear that they had claimed superior right on the basis of ownership in the estate, also not established‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbul A.Qadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners brought a suit for pre‑emption. It was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the vendees it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. In second appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
2. The petitioners based their claim to the superior right on the assertion that they were co‑sharers in the khata in which the land in dispute was situate. However, at the trial they were unable to substantiate their assertion. They then took the plea that their claim to superior right should be upheld on the ground that they were owners in the estate while the respondents‑vendees were strangers therein. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the plea on the ground that this was not the basis on which they had come to the Court. The High Court upheld the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that if their plain was properly construed, it would have become clear that they had claimed the superior right on the basis of ownership in the estate also. After perusing the plaint we are unable to accept this contention. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.I./B‑62/S Petition dismissed.