MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs NASEER AHMAD and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption case where the petitioner, a vendee/defendant, challenged the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court which had upheld the pre-emption decree originally granted in favour of the respondents on 30th October 1984. The core legal question concerned whether the decree was hit by the rule laid down in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) and whether the petitioner's plea of a superior right of pre-emption as a tenant was properly considered. The Supreme Court held that since the decree was passed prior to 31st July 1986, the intervening remand order did not affect the matter under the cited rule, and the findings of fact regarding tenancy could not be reopened. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that decrees passed before the critical date are protected despite intervening remands, and concurrent findings of fact on tenancy in pre-emption suits will not be revisited.
- Does an intervening remand order affect the protection of a pre-emption decree passed prior to 31st July 1986 under the rule in Sardar Ali's case?
- Will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence regarding a claim of superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy that has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee/defendant's side in a pre-emption case against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's civil revision against a decree for pre-emption originally granted by the trial Court, on 30th October, 1984.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that the decree in respondent's favour was hit by the rule laid down in the case `Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others' (PLD 1988 SC 287). He has also contended that the petitioner's plea that he had a superior right of pre-emption therefore the suit of the respondents should have been dismissed, was not properly considered.
3. The decree in the present case for the first time was passed in favour of the respondents in 1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was not passed prior to 31st July, 1986. The fact that there was intervening remand order would not, in view of the principles laid down in the said case, make any difference in the circumstances of this case.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel regarding plea of petitioner's superior right of pre-emption based on the assertion that he was the tenant in possession of the suit land at the relevant time, stands concluded by findings of fact. No justification has been made out for reappraisal of the evidence in this behalf. None of the arguments of the learned counsel has any force. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.