Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.946 of 1984, decided on 23rd October, 1984. _

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 26‑6‑1984 in Civil Revision No.483 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.7‑‑Custom‑ Existence of‑‑Leave granted to consider whether custom proved to have prevailed in one locality (Mohalla) of old city will be presumed to have prevailed in other parts thereof unless proved otherwise‑‑Conflict in decided cases on this issue required to be resolved.

Lala Gainda Mal and another v . Rods and others 63 I C 766 ref.

Law of Pre‑emption by M. Mehmood, 2nd Edition, pp. 91‑92 ref.

Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record and M. Farooq Hasan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1984.

‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 26‑6‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a civil revision filed by the petitioner‑vendee‑defendant in a suit for pre‑emption challenging the decree in favour of the respondent‑plaintiff, was dismissed.

Amongst others, an argument raised in the High Court on Issue No.3 as to whether the custom of pre‑emption prevailed in the locality concerned (a Mohallah of old city of Multan) was repelled in the impugned judgment with reference to certain observations made in some of the cases noted at page 91 of the Book on Law of Pre‑emption by M. Mahmood (2nd Edition), Accordingly it was assumed that if such a custom is proved to have prevailed in one Mohallah of the old city it will be presumed to have prevailed in the other parts thereof unless proved otherwise. As in those cases and also in some other cases it was found that the said custom prevailed in some Mohallas of old city of Multan, therefore, the relevant issue was answered in favour of the respondent‑plaintiff .

Learned counsel has relied on a booklet showing decisions otherwise in some other cases. He has also relied on the cases mentioned at page 92 of the book‑ by M. Mahmood which also relate to the city of Multan. His reliance in so far as the principle is concerned is also on a case relating to Ludhiana City, namely Lala Gainda Mal and another v. Roda and others 63 1 C 766.

After hearing the learned counsel there seems to be some conflict in the decided cases regarding the controversy involved in this case. It needs to be resolved. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.1,000. Stay order dated 10‑10‑1984 to remain in force.

M.I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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