Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

versus


The pre-discrimination case is the fact that a third person has challenged the ownership of the pre-emptor Claimant for non-prosecution Punjab Pre-Impression Act (1913), section 28A

1968 S C M R 1311

Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ

ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners

versus

BASHIR AHMAD KHAN‑Respondent

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 105 of 1968, decided on 28th June 1968.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th February 1968, in Civil Revision No. 107 of 1968).

Pre‑emption‑

--Suit for pre‑emption‑Mere fact that a third person has challenged ownership of property of pre‑emptor---- No ground for non‑suiting plaintiff-----Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 28‑A.

M. Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 28th June 1968.

ORDER

ABDUS SATTAR, J.

‑This petition by the defendant‑vendees in a suit for possession through pre‑emption is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing in limine an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The petitioners filed an application under section 28‑A of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act read with section 151, C. P. C. for the stay of the pre‑emption suit on the ground that against the plaintiff a third party had brought another civil suit challenging his title to the property in question. The application was rejected by the Civil Judge, Leiah and the High Court has refused to interfere with the order.

This petition is directed against an interlocutory order. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that in the absence of anything to show that the plaintiff has lost his right of owner‑ship in the land in question his right to continue the suit cannot be questioned.

The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
patent advocate from Zhob lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.