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. 613 of 1975, decided on 25th November, 1980.
(On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, dated 20‑3‑1975 in R.S.A. No. 70 of 1964‑BWP).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Notification No. 74, dated 12‑6‑1944‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Petitioner plaintiff having no right of pre‑emption in property at time of sale and at time of suit and a right revived to him after institution of suit‑‑Suit of petitioners, held, rightly dismissed by Courts below‑.‑Leave refused.
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M.A. Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1980.
‑‑The petitioner's suit for pre‑emption was dismissed by the trial judge on 11‑3‑1963 on the ground that the suit land was situated in colony area and was not subject to pre‑emption. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur on 18‑4‑1964, and her second appeal was also dismissed by Lahore High Court for the same reason on 20‑3‑1975 and she now seeks special leave to appeal.
Mr. Shaikh Masud Akhtar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner submits that the notification, dated 12‑6‑1944 which placed prohibition on the claims of pre‑emption was withdrawn by notification, dated 12‑2‑1974 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and therefore the petitioner was entitled to a decree in her favour at the stage of second appeal in the High Court since by then the bar to the claim in suit had been removed.
This argument has rightly been rejected by the High Court for the reason that "pre‑emptor did not have any right of pre‑emption in the property on account of notification No. 74, dated 12‑6‑1944 issued under section 8(2) of the Pre‑emption Act. It is a cardinal principle that the pre‑emptor must have a right of pre‑emption at the time of the sales and at the time of the suit but the appellant lacks such right both at the time of the sale and at the time of the suit. In such circumstances if a right has revived to him after the institution of the suit, it would not give him any advantage." ,
The view that has prevailed in the High Court is well‑settled and there is, therefore, no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel.
This petition is dismissed in limine.
M . Y . H Leave petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer