MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs FAYYAZ MASOOD MALIK and otherss
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts which rejected the petitioner's plaint in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the sale of land effected through a consent decree, which fell within the limits of the Town Committee of Sodhra and was urban in nature, was subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings that the land was urban and therefore not pre-emptable were legally sound and free from any illegality. The key principle laid down is that the sale of urban land falling within municipal or town committee limits is not open to pre-emption under the law, and plaints seeking to pre-empt such transactions are rightly rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
- Whether the sale of land falling within the limits of a Town Committee is subject to pre-emption?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the suit land is determined to be urban in nature?
- Is a sale of land effected through a consent decree susceptible to a pre-emption suit when the property is located within urban municipal limits?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This petition is directed against a judgment, dated 13-7-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,252 of 1992 whereby the orders, dated 18-3- 1991 and 13-11-1991 passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad and the learned Additional District Judge at Wazirabad had been affirmed.
2. Muhammad Younis petitioner filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Wazirabad to pre-empt the sale of 36 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land made by Mukhtar Ahmad respondent in favor of Fayaz Masood respondent through a consent decree dated 25-3-1990. Fayaz Masood vendee filed an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. Submitting therein that the suit land fell within the Town Committee of Sodhra and thus the sale of the suit-land was not pre-emptily.
Through his judgment, dated 18-3-1991, the learned trial Judge accepted the said application and rejected the plaint of the present petitioner under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. On appeal filed by the pre-emptor a learned Additional District Judge at Gujranwala affirmed the said order of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal, which led to the above mentioned revision petition before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed through the above-noticed impugned judgment. Hence this petition.
3. On the factual plane nothing had been brought on record to demonstrate that the land in question was not urban in nature or that the same did not fall within the limits of Town Committee of Sodhra. Therefore, on the legal plane, no exception could be taken to the finding of all the three learned Courts that the sale in question was not preemptable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who was heard at some length has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgments which proceed on correct and sound legal foundations.
Cited by 1 case
- Munir Ahmed Versus Mst. Toheeda-tul-Hassan 2026 YLR 1161