REHMAT ALI and another vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR ALI KHAN and 4 others
The petitioners, who were pre-emptors and plaintiffs in two separate cases, sought leave to appeal against two judgments of the Lahore High Court that dismissed their Civil Revision and First Regular Appeal respectively. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a pre-emption decree could be passed in pending suits where the law under which the suits were instituted had ceased to have effect. The Supreme Court held that since the governing law ceased to have effect on 31st July 1986 by virtue of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, no decree for pre-emption could now be passed for the first time in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that pending pre-emption suits cannot culminate in a decree once the underlying statutory law has ceased to be effective.
- Can a decree of pre-emption be passed for the first time after the law under which the suit was instituted has ceased to have effect?
- What is the effect of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah on pending pre-emption suits?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The pre-emptors/plaintiffs in two separate cases, have sought leave to appeal from two separate judgments of the Lahore High Court; whereby, in one case, the petitioners' Civil Revision and, in the other case, the petitioners' First Regular Appeal, were dismissed.
2. It is admitted by both the learned counsel that no decree of pre-emption has so far been passed in any of these cases. The law under which the suits were instituted by the petitioners ceased to have effect on 31st of July, 1986 by virtue of the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court in case of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360). That being so, no decree can now be passed for the first time on the basis of the said law in favour of the petitioners. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused