SIRAJ DIN vs GHULAM NABI and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on his relationship as the brother of the vendor and his status as a co-owner in the Patti. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's suit could proceed to a decree after the cutoff date of 31st July 1986, given the changes in the law of pre-emption. The High Court had previously determined that while the rejection of the plaint was procedurally improper, allowing the suit to continue would be an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the grounds for claiming a superior right of pre-emption were no longer available after 31st July 1986, rendering a decree in the petitioner's favour legally impossible. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to allow the continuation of the proceedings was correct and unexceptional, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a suit for pre-emption proceed to a decree if the grounds for the superior right of pre-emption ceased to exist after 31st July 1986?
- Is it appropriate for a court to refuse the continuation of proceedings if the outcome would be an exercise in futility?
ORDER
' SHAFTUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner was a pre-emptor claiming superiority of his pre-emption right on the ground of his relationship being brother of the vendor and co-owner in the Patti. No decree was passed in favour of the petitioner till 31st of July, 1986. The High Court has held that the order rejecting the plaint was not proper but at the same time has not allowed the continuation of the proceedings because it would be an exercise in futility.
2. We find that indeed the ground pressed for claiming superior right of pre-emption was not available after .31st of July, 1986 and the suit could not end in favour of the petitioner. The order of the High Court is, therefore, unexceptional.
3. No case is made out for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.