MUSHTAQ ETC. vs AKHTAR HUSSAN Etc.S
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13-6-1979 in R. S. A. No. 133/79, wherein the petitioners sought to pre-empt a part of a sale transaction by splitting up the bargain on the ground that the shares of various vendees were separately mentioned in the sale-deed. The core legal question is whether a pre-emption suit can be maintained by splitting up the bargain and pre-empting a part of the sale transaction when the shares of the vendees are specified in the sale-deed but the price is not specified. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the view taken by the High Court—that such a plea is of no effect without specification of price—is supported by established precedents of the Court. The key principle laid down is that splitting up a bargain in a pre-emption suit without specification of price is not permissible.
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained by splitting up the bargain based on separately mentioned shares of vendees without specification of price?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to allow the splitting of a bargain in a pre-emption suit is legally sustainable?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHM CHAUHAN, J.-It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of this case and the stages through which it passed inasmuch as it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to mention that the petitioners want to pre-empt a part of the sale transaction in favour of certain vendees (out of total lot of vendees) by splitting up the bargain on the ground that the shares of - all and the various vendees were separately mentioned in the sale-deed, with the result that against those vendees qua whom they had a preferential right of pre-emption their suit should have been proportionately decreed. This plea was not accepted by the High Court: who on 13-6- 1979 rejected R. S. A. No. 133/79 which had been filed by the petitioners on the subject and it was held that without specification of price such a plea was of no effect. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
2. The view taken by the High Court is supported by decisions of this Court as reported in Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karimothers (PLD 1968 SC 140) and Ahmad and others v. Ghularn Haider (1972 SCMR 357). In the face of the aforesaid there is no error in the order of the High Court and the petition for leave to appeal has no substance. Learned counsel in this respect wanted to rely upon Ram Nath and others v. Badri Narain and others (1 L R 19 All. 148) but the said case has duly been taken note of by this Court in the precedent earlier mentioned and needs no separate discussion. The petition is dismissed.