GHULAM RASOOL and anothers vs ABDUR RASHID and another
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their pre-emption suit regarding a land sale registered on 16 April 1986, filed on 12 April 1987 on the ground of co-ownership. The trial court held the suit had abated based on the judgment in Malik Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360), and the appellate and revisional courts upheld this view. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that since the suit was filed on 12 April 1987 when Shariat Law was applicable, it was governed by the rule in Mst. Safia Begum v. Ibrahim (PLD 1989 SC 314), which allowed suits for pre-emption under general law regarding causes of action arising after 31 July 1986. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this contention.
- Whether a pre-emption suit filed on the ground of co-ownership after 31 July 1986 is competent under general law?
- Did the judgment in Malik Said Kamal's case abate all pre-emption suits arising after 31 July 1986?
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Mst. Sharifan Bibi widow of Shamim Akhtar daughter of Muhammad Sharif sold 21 Kanals 18 Marlas of land in favour of respondents vide registered sale-deed attested on 16- 4-1986. Petitioner filed suit to pre-empt the sale on 12-4-1987 on the ground of Shaf-eSharik.
Respondents as defendants in the suit filed written statement in which they did not raise any objection to the non-making of Talabs. On 13-7-1988 trial Court held that suit had abated in view of judgment in Malik Said Kamal's case reported in PLD 1986 SC 360. Appeal was dismissed on the ground that no law of pre-emption existed when the suit was filed. High Court dismissed the revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that Said Kamal's case was decided in 1986 while in this case suit for pre-emption was filed on the ground of co-ownership on 12-4-1987, when Shariat Law was applicable and is, therefore, governed by rule laid down in the case of Mst.
Safia Begum v. Ibrahim (PLD 1989 SC 314 at p. 332) in which paragraph 32 provides as under:-- "It has not yet been ruled that no suit for pre-emption under the general law, other than statutory laws, would be competent regarding the cause of action arising after 31st July, 1986."
3. Leave is granted to examine the record in the light of contention mentioned above. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.