Sheikh ABDUL HALIM and others vs GHULAM NABI through L.Rs, and otherss
Six civil petitions for leave to appeal were filed by vendees-defendants challenging the concurrent judgments of the appellate courts and the High Court which decreed the respondents' suits for possession through pre-emption. The sales occurred in February 1979, and the litigation spanned roughly twenty-five years. The petitioners contended that due to systemic judicial delays, significant currency depreciation, and the drastic appreciation of real estate prices over a quarter-century, granting possession at the 1979 sale rate would be unjust. The pre-emptors counter-argued that pre-emption is a strict right of substitution precluding judicial enhancement of the sale consideration, that the pre-emptor was not responsible for delay, and that the vendees had continuously enjoyed usufruct of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the land remained agricultural and pre-emptable, but granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court possesses the jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution to refix the purchase price in cases of prolonged litigation.
- Whether the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to refix or enhance the purchase consideration in a pre-emption suit due to inordinate judicial delay and property appreciation?
- Whether the doctrine of substitution in the law of pre-emption strictly prohibits courts from revising the sale price fixed at the time of the original transaction?
- Whether systemic delays and currency depreciation over a prolonged litigation period constitute valid grounds for equitable adjustment of decreed amounts in pre-emption proceedings?
- 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 pre-emption 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,4,000 to 5,000 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However, the total amount was withdrawn on 6-7-1986 and deposited on 10-11-2001.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 has 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 Advocate Supreme Court 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 the 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 Advocate Supreme Court on the other hand has with equal vehemence urged that pre-emption 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 throughout 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 preemptor be allowed to enjoy the property. In particular deeper examination of the Article 187 of the Constitution along with 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 pre-emptor should be allowed to take the property. Similar questions may arise in cases of specific performance, maintenance of minors under Family Courts Act, 1964/Guardian and Ward 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 within 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 Association of the country will be requested to render assistance.