Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1606

Dr. ABDUL MALIK vs Raja KHURSHID ALI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1606
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No. QIS of 1985
Date1986-05-02
Judge(s)Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
Authored byMian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated as an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption claim involving a tenant. The core legal question presented was whether the requirement of 'Talab' (the formal demand for pre-emption) is applicable when a tenant seeks to pre-empt property under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. During the proceedings, the parties reached a consensus to remand the case to the High Court for a comprehensive decision on the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court. The High Court was directed to adjudicate the case on its merits, specifically determining whether the performance of 'Talab' is a necessary legal prerequisite for a tenant exercising pre-emption rights under Martial Law Regulation 115.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is the performance of 'Talab' a necessary requirement for a tenant seeking to pre-empt property under Martial Law Regulation 115?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Martial Law Regulation 115
pre-emptionTalabtenant rightsremandMartial Law Regulation 115

ORDER

1. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--The ,learned counsel for the parties have agreed to the remand of the case to High Court for decision on merits.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent had made statement that 'Talab' in the instant case was not made as it was not necessary for a tenant pre-empting under the provision of M.L.R. 115.

3. In view of this the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits as well as on the question whether 'Talab' is or is not necessary under the provisions of M.L.R.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.