ZAHOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus BARKAT HUSSAIN

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre‑emption suit brought by the respondent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed on 25‑11‑1979 by the Lahore High Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent had founded his claim to superior rights on two grounds; first, he was a real brother of the vendor and, second, he was a tenant in the land in dispute. He argued that as the respondent had also claimed to be a tenant the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for it fell exclusively within the competence of the Revenue Court. It may be mentioned that this contention was also raised before the High Court but was rejected with the observations:

"There is no force in the contention that the Civil Courts did not have the jurisdiction in the case as the respondent had stated that he was cultivating the land as a tenant. No doubt, the respondent did assert the fact but did not pursue the matter. He squarely based his case on clause 15(b) (thirdly) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act and the parties contested the suit on this score alone. Therefore, the plea though ingenuous is belated and without force or merit."

We see no reason to take a different view in the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that under the Muslim Law the right of pre‑emption based upon mere relationship with the vendor was unenforcable. 1t is difficult to accept this contention in view of the decision of this Court in Piran Ditta v. Member Revenue Board 1987 S C M R 406.

4. No other point has been raised in this petition. The petition is dismissed.

S.Q./Z‑29/S Petition dismissed.