MIAN MUHAMMAD And 3 Others vs FALAK SHER And 4 Other
The appellants filed a direct appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a pre-emption decree previously granted in their favour and dismissed their suit. The appeal before the Supreme Court was time-barred by 32 days. Furthermore, the appellants' counsel conceded that, in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent rulings in Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1-R of 1989 (PLD 1990 SC 865), Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899), and Muhammad Yasin v. Khan Muhammad (PLD 1990 SC 1060), he had no substantive arguments to advance against the High Court's decision. The appellants sought clarification regarding their ability to pursue remedies under the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation and the binding effect of the aforementioned precedents. However, the Court explicitly observed that the dismissal of the appeal did not preclude the appellants from seeking any other legal remedy that might be available to them under the law, specifically referencing potential relief under the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991.
- Does the dismissal of a pre-emption suit based on subsequent Supreme Court rulings preclude a party from seeking alternative remedies under the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1991?
- Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the grounds of being time-barred when the appellant also concedes the lack of substantive arguments?
- Section 36, Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1991
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The plaintiffs have preferred a direct appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-6-1989 whereby a pre--emption decree passed in their favour was set aside and their suit was dismissed.
2. This appeal is shown to be barred by 32 days. Apart from it, the learned counsel for the appellants Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf has admitted that in view of the decisions subsequently given by this Court in Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No.1-R of 1989 in Shariat Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 1979 etc. PLD 1990 SC 865 followed by Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 899 and Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others PLD 1990 SC 1060, he has no arguments to advance except to draw the attention of the Court to an earlier decision on the same subject by a learned Judge in Baldeo Misir v. Ramalagan Shukul (AIR 1924 Allahabad 82) in support of his point of view. He further wanted that it should be made clear that he would be free to avail of section 36 of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance No.IX of 1991) for getting redress as may be admissible according to the law.
3. In view of our decisions referred to and the appeal being time-barred, we dismiss it and observe that certainly the appellants can avail of any other remedy that law makes available to them. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.