KHALILURREHMAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS
This appeal, filed by a pre-emptor, challenged the rejection of his plaint due to non-compliance with an order issued under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The pre-emptor's subsequent appeal and revision before the High Court were also dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the appellant's claim, which was founded on his superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the Khata. The Court held that since no decree had been passed in the appellant's favour by any lower court, the suit was directly affected by the principles established in prior Supreme Court judgments, specifically Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Shoaib v. Member (Revenue). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the plaint.
- Can a pre-emption suit based on co-sharer status proceed if no decree has been passed in the pre-emptor's favour?
- What are the consequences of non-compliance with an order under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, on a pre-emption suit?
- Section 22(4), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This is an appeal by leave to appeal by a pre-emptor, whose plaint was rejected on account of noncompliance with the order under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913, his appeal failed and the revision before the High Court also met the same fate.
2. The judgment, dated 19-11-1989, rejecting the revision, is under challenge before us.
2. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court in refusing to interfere with the orders of the Courts below need not be evaluated, for, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant, his superior right of pre-emption is wholly founded on the ground that he is co-sharer in the Khata. Admittedly, no decree in favour of the appellant has so far been passed by any of the Courts below. It being so the suit is hit by the rule laid down by this Court in Government of N.-W.F.P.
3. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360, Sardar All and others v. Muhammad All and others PLD 1988 SC 287 and Muhammad Shoaib and others v.
4. Member (Revenue) and others PLD 1988 SC 355. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.