RAHIM BAKHSH And Another vs MUNAWAR AHMAD And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The respondents had originally filed a suit for pre-emption based on their relationship with the vendor and their status as landowners in the estate, alleging that the sale price had been inflated to defeat their pre-emption rights. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The petitioners challenged this in the High Court, which upheld the decree. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the suit should fail based on the principle established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), which declared certain provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding the right of pre-emption of a successor of a vendor, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. Finding that leave had been granted in similar cases, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed the matter to be heard alongside other similar appeals.
- Are the provisions of Section 15(a) and (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, regarding the right of pre-emption of a successor of a vendor, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Should a petition for leave to appeal be granted when the legal point raised is pending consideration in other similar appeals before the Supreme Court?
- Section 15(a), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
- Section 15(b), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This order will dispose of a petition for leave to appeal brought by Rahim Bakhsh and others from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 18 6-1986, whereby their second appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents brought a suit for pre-emption of the land described in para. 1 of the plaint claiming a superior right of pre-emption on the ground of their relationship with the vendor and on account of their being owners in the estate. It was also alleged in the plaint that the bargain was stuck for Rs.3,000 but in order to defeat their right of pre-emption an inflated amount of Rs.5,600 had been given as the sale price. The suit was contested and as many as nine issues were framed by the learned trial Court. After recording the evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment and order dated 22-12-1982 dismissed the suit of the respondents. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, however, reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents on the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,600 vide his judgment dated 21-5-1985. The above finding was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court by way of second appeal which was dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The only ground agitated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the suit of the respondents must fail in view of the latest judgment of the Appellate Shariat Bench reported as Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 wherein it has been held that the provision of section 15(a) and (b), clause thirdly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, recognizing a right of pre-emption of a successor of a vendor, has been held to be repugnant to the Injunction of Islam. Since leave has been granted by this Court in a number of cases where similar point has been urged, we, therefore, grant leave in this petition and direct that this appeal may be heard alongwith other similar appeals. Security Rs.2.000.
4.The learned counsel for the caveator, in view of the circumstances, has prayed that the respondents may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by them without prejudice to their case.
We order accordingly.