IMRAT KHAN Versus AHMAD DIN

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑These three appeals by plaintiffs arising out of pre‑emption cases involve a common question of law, they are being disposed of together.

2. Leave to appeal was granted after noting the following submissions: ‑‑

3. "All the learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that these petitions have been filed by plaintiffs/pre‑emptors who had obtained decrees for pre‑emption at one or the other stage of litigation prior to 31st July, 1986; when the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in the case of Government of N . ‑W . F .P . v. Malik Said Kamal Shah P L D 1986 S d 360 came into effect. Nevertheless they have been denied the benefit of the decrees mainly on the ground that the valuation of the subject‑matter, for purposes of court‑fee jurisdiction was not properly made. They have also and/or raised a common argument; namely, that these cases are covered .by the decision of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and two others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289. The High Court rendered the impugned decisions in these cases prior to the judgment of the Supreme court."

4. In addition to the point regarding court‑fee noted above, in one of these cases (C.A. No.97) there is an additional point that in the judgment therein the High Court also took note of the defect in the presentation of the plaint before a Civil Court which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and considered this aspect, as relevant so as to non‑suit the plaintiff/the appellant therein.

5. None has appeared to oppose the Appeals No.96 and 98. In Appeal No.97, However, the learned counsel for the respondents, while "conceding" the point regarding deficiency in the court‑fee on the ground noted in the Leave Granting Order with reference to the case of Siddique Khan, contended that the said appeal merited to be dismissed on the point regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. When questioned, whether the conditions laid down in section 11 of Suits Valuation Act regarding this point were satisfied, he referred only to one of them having been satisfied; namely, that the point was raised in the High Court. He, nonetheless, remained unable to satisfy us regarding the other that any prejudice had been caused to the respondents on this issue. His further reply that the suit had become time‑barred due to presentation of the plaint before wrong Civil Court would not displace the considerations regarding section 11.

6. The subject‑matter, in all these appeals is covered by the in Siddique Khan's case; which goes against decision of this Court the respondents. These appeals are, accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. The result in these cases is as follows'‑

8. CIVIL APPEAL NO.96 of 1988:

9. The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The case is remanded to District Court for the hearing of the appeal on the remaining points, as if it is pending, in accordance with law.

10. CIVIL APPEALS NOS.97 & 98 of 1988:

11. The impugned judgments and the decrees are set aside. The judgments and decrees of the trial Courts therein, are restored; as the same in the circumstances thereof, would be deemed to have been upheld by the respective appeal Courts, on points other than those discussed above. The trial Courts, would grant two months' time to the decree‑holders, for deposit of amounts if any, after due notice to them.

12. M. I. /I‑41/S Appeals accepted.