MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN alias KHALID JAVED KHAN and 3 others vs SHER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee challenging the High Court's refusal to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in pre-emption cases. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the pre-emptors' case regarding the payment of court-fee was governed by the principles established in the precedent of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289). While the petitioner's counsel initially argued that the issue of 'contumacy' required further examination by the Court, relying on the leave-granting order in Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Abdul Hamid (1986 SCMR 333), the Court rejected this contention. The Supreme Court held that the case was indeed covered by the Siddique Khan ruling. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the judgment in Iqbal's case was distinguishable because the Siddique Khan precedent had not been brought to the Court's attention at that time. On the merits, the Court found no evidence of 'contumacy' as defined in Siddique Khan, and consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the precedent established in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another govern the payment of court-fee in pre-emption cases?
- Does the failure to bring a relevant precedent to the Court's notice in a prior case affect the binding nature of that precedent in subsequent matters?
- What constitutes 'contumacy' in the context of court-fee payment in pre-emption litigation?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in these two pre- emption matters; against the impugned judgments of the High Court refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
2. ' The controversy raised in this Court is; whether, in matter of court-fee plaintiffs/pre-emptors case was covered by rule laid down by thi, Court in `Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another' PLD 1984 SC 289.
3. After some arguments the learned counsel conceded that the present matter is covered by the said judgment; but, vehemently argued that question of "contumacy" would need examination by this Court. He has, in this behalf, relied upon leave granting -order 'Muhammad Iqbal and others v.
4. Abdul Hamid 1986 SCM R 333.
5. ' Firstly, in Iqbal's case, the judgment in the case of Siddique Khan was not brought to the notice of the Court. Secondly, in any case on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we have found that the present case does not fall within the definition of "contumacy" as laid down in the case of Siddique Khan. Thus no justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal is refused in these petitions. 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.