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. 153‑R of 1986, decided on 28th June, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑4‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 1003/D of 1986).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Point not urged before High Court, Supreme Court refused to give any conclusive finding thereon‑ Petition being devoid of force, dismissed.
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th June, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 23rd April, 1986, of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision filed by a vendee arising out of a pre‑emption matter, was dismissed.
The main point urged before, the High Court and reiterated before us by the learned counsel is that the respondent /plaintiffs' suit was time‑barred as the period of limitation should have been reckoned from the date of possession under the sale and not from the date of the mutation.
The learned Judge in the High Court observed as follows in this behalf:‑
"Admittedly, the subject‑matter of sale as agreed to by the parties, was 1761 /28184th share of the joint land and not any specific piece of land. In the circumstances, the petitioners could not be said to have taken physical possession of the land in dispute under the sale so as to attract the provisions of section 30 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, confining the period of limitation to a year of taking physical possession of the land. The suit was no doubt brought within a year of the attestation of the mutation of sale and was within time. "
In order to meet this observation, learned counsel relied upon a previous litigation between the pre‑emptor and the vendor wherein the pre‑emptor had challenged the right of the vendor to sell specific Khasra numbers from joint un partitioned property. This suit was compromised as a result of which the main contesting parties (although the petitioner was also a pro forma party in the suit) had agreed to keep their possession of respective properties in accordance with their private arrangement. It is nowhere shown that this arrangement was to be made applicable to the land in, dispute. Be that as it may, this point was not urged before the High Court. We, therefore, are not inclined to give any conclusive finding thereon. This petition has not force and is accordingly dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer