IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ABDUL HAQ CH.
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, concerning the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit where the sale mutation was attested on 28-11-1973 and the suit was filed on 25-11-1975. The core legal question is whether the suit was time-barred based on the date of actual sale versus the date of attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that since the land was in the actual physical possession of tenants—a fact undisputed by the parties—the vendees could not be deemed to have taken physical possession on the date of sale, meaning limitation correctly ran from the date of mutation attestation. The Court further held that a valuation and court-fee point not pressed before the High Court cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- From which date does limitation run for filing a pre-emption suit when the land is in the actual possession of tenants?
- Can a new point regarding the valuation of the suit for court-fee, not pressed before the High Court, be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Punjab Pre-emption Act
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-In this case which is under the Punjab Pre-emp--petition Act, that mutation of sale had been attested on 28-11-1973 and the suit had been filed on 25-11-1975. Learned counsel contends that the suit was time-barred inasmuch as the actual sale had taken place on 24-11- 1975. The High Court has held that since the land was in actual possession of tenants, which fact was not disputed by the parties, the vendees could not be said to have taken physical possession of the same on the date of the sale and as such the limitation started running from the date of the attestation of the mutation. This finding is in accord with the law and calls for no interference.
2. Learned counsel also challenges the correctness of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee, but there is nothing in the judgment of the High Court to show that this point had been pressed there. The learned Judge has recorded that the petitioner's counsel had disputed the findings on the question of waiver and limitation and he accordingly confine his discussion to those two points only. The point, therefore, is not permitted to be raised before this Court.
3. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- KALAY KHAN and 2 others vs WALAYAT KHAN 2010 YLR 1430