Sheikh ABDUL HAKLIM and others vs GHULAM NABI (deceased) through L.Rs
These six petitions were filed by vendees-defendants against judgments decreeing suits for possession through pre-emption, where sales occurred in February 1979 and litigation spanned over twenty-five years. The primary defense was that the land had ceased to be agricultural, a finding concurrent in favor of the respondents. The petitioners argued that due to massive depreciation of money and soaring real estate values over the quarter-century, allowing pre-emptors to take possession at 1979 prices would be unjust. Conversely, respondents contended that pre-emption is a right of substitution and courts cannot unilaterally enhance the agreed consideration, noting vendees enjoyed the usufruct throughout. The Supreme Court observed that the inordinate delay and substantial change in monetary value raise significant constitutional and legal questions regarding whether courts can refix the property value for successful pre-emptors. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues alongside matters like specific performance and family maintenance, directing expedited hearings.
- Whether in cases of inordinate delay in the disposal of cases, courts can refix the value at which a successful pre-emptor should be allowed to take the property?
- Does the depreciation of money and increase in real estate value over a long litigation period justify enhancing the consideration amount in pre-emption suits?
- Can a court adjust the price in pre-emption or specific performance matters to counter the effects of prolonged judicial delays?
- Article 187, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Family Courts Act, 1964
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
ORDER
Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.--These six petitions are filed by the vendees-defendants questioning the judgments by which the suits of the respondents-plaintiff for possession through preemption have been decreed.
2. The sales in these cases had taken place in February, 1979. The suit land ranged from 2 kanals 11 marlas to 5 kanals 3 marlas and the price roughly worked out to be between Rs, 4000/- to 5000/- per marla. The plaintiff deposited the 1/5 price in October, 1979, the remaining price on 10.9.1984.
However the total amount was withdrawn on 6.7.1986 and deposited on 10.11.2001.
3. The suits were mainly defended on the ground that the land had ceased to be agricultural and therefore not pre-emptable. After review of evidence the first appellate Court as well, as the High Court have held the same to be pre-emptable. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are inclined to uphold the above findings of the High Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned ASC for the petitioner has however strenuously urged that because of the defect/weakness in the working of the system of administration of justice, it has taken about quarter of the century for the litigation to conclude. He has urged that during this period of 25 years while money value has depreciated considerably the prices of real estate have gone up progressively. He has submitted that it would be highly unjust if the suit land whose market value has gone up is allowed to be taken away by the pre-emptor at the rate prevailing in the year 1979. Mr. Zamir Hussain, learned ASC on the other hand has with equal vehemence urged that preemption is a right of substitution and this Court cannot enhance the consideration agreed to by the parties or fixed by the trial Court; that plaintiff pre-emptor is not to be blamed for the delay of twenty five years or for the depreciation in the value of money and that in any case the plaintiff-pre-emptor parted with the money and deposited it in Court as required and it was for the Court to have utilized the deposited amount in some profitable scheme so as to compensate one or the other party for the loss in its value and further that the Court should keep in mind that through-out this period the vendees-petitioners have been in possession of the land and enjoying its usufruct.
5. The above are relevant consideration for determining the question as to at what price, after lapse of 25 years the successful pre-emptor be allowed to enjoy the property. In particular deeper examination of the Article 187 of the Constitution alongwith relevant statutory provisions is required to authoritatively determine as to whether in cases of inordinate delay in the disposal of cases this Court and following the law declared by this Court the other Courts in the country, can refix the value at which the successful preemptor should be allowed to take the property. Similar questions may arise in cases of specific performance, maintenance of minors under Family Courts Act,, 1964/Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and so. Accordingly we grant leave in all these petitions to consider the above questions and questions which may be subsidiary or incidental to this question.
6. Since these cases have already taken more than 25 years for disposal we direct that appeals arising out of these petitions will be heard "thin 6 months on the present record with permission to the parties to add to the documents.
7. Since the questions are of general public importance, the Presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association and all the High Court Bar Associations of the country will be requested to render assistance.