Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 171 of 1979, decided on 8th February, 1986.
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑12‑1978 in R.S.A No. 765 of 1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Before decision of pre‑emption suit of petitioners a portion of suit land was included in Municipal limits on account of which no right of pre‑emption existed to them‑‑Order of High Court upholding dismissal of petitioner's suit to extent of portion of land included in Municipal limits maintained‑‑Held, in order to succeed in pre‑emption suit plaintiffs should not only have a right to pre‑empt on date of sale and on date of filing of suit but also on date of passing of decree‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 9‑12‑1978 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Regular Second appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for pre‑emption. Before the decision of the suit, however, a notification was issued, the effect of which was that 15 Kanals out of the pre‑empted agricultural land was included in Municipal limits of Sialkot city on account of which no right of pre‑emption could be claimed in regard thereto. Accordingly a decree only for remaining land was passed. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of the suit with regard to 15 Kanals in First and Second Appeal. Having failed to achieve success they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel agrees that in order to succeed in the suit the plaintiffs should not only have right to pre‑empt on the date of the sale and on the date of the filing of the suit but also on the date of the passing of the decree. He also agrees that before passing of the decree in the suit 15 Kanals of land became part of the municipal area and thus was exempted in this case from the law of pre‑emption. Therefore, on the date of the decree he could not exercise right of pre‑emption with regard to the disputed 15 Kanals. That being so, the dismissal of his suit regarding the disputed area was rightly upheld by the High Court. This petition fails and leave to appeal is refused.
M. Y . H . Appeal refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer