ABDUL AZIZ and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD ZARIF and 3 others
This appeal arises from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court concerning a suit for pre-emption based on tenancy. The appellants, who were the original defendants/vendees, challenged the remand of the case to the Collector. During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appellants' locus standi, arguing that the appellants had sold the suit land to a third party, Mst. Jannat, who possessed a superior title. Furthermore, the respondents contended that Mst. Jannat was a necessary party to the litigation. The appellants countered that the land had been re-sold to them, though this assertion remained contested. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the alleged re-sale, Mst. Jannat was an essential party to the proceedings, as she was entitled to challenge the appellants' claims regarding the transfer of title. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, ruling that the absence of a necessary party rendered the appeal unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellants failed to implead a necessary party whose interests were directly affected by the litigation.
- Is a subsequent purchaser of suit land a necessary party in a pre-emption appeal?
- Does an appellant have locus standi to pursue an appeal if they have transferred the subject property to a third party?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to implead a necessary party?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court, of appellants/defendants' Constitutional petition. The respondents/plaintiffs' suit for pre-emption on the ground of tenancy was dismissed, the appeal, however, was allowed and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision. The appellants' Civil Revision and writ petition having been dismissed, leave to appeal was granted to examine the validity of the impugned judgment.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondents' side has raised a preliminary objection that the appellants/defendants/vendees in a suit for pre-emption had, as first vendees, sold the suit land to a lady named Mst. Jannat who had a better title and ground to resist a suit for pre-emption. And as the appellants had lost the title in the land so as to sustain any grievance or appeal against the impugned judgments, they have no locus standi in this appeal. Not only this learned counsel raised another equally formidable preliminary argument; namely, that the land having once been transferred to Mst. Jannat she is a necessary party. And that being so, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on these two grounds.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellants has in reply contended that although the suit land had been sold by the appellants to Mst. Jannat but she had re-sold it to them. And this assertion, according to him, gets support from material placed on record by both sides.
4. Even if it be assumed that there is some material to support the assertion of the appellants that the suit land was purported to have been resold to the appellants it is not certain that Mst. Jannat, if she would have been a party to this appeal, would have in any the appellants claim with regard to resale. Nothwithstanding the material relied upon by the appellants she could and was entitled to challenge the same on more than one grounds. She was, therefore, an absolutely essential party. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we uphold the preliminary objections raised from the respondents' side. This appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. Appeal