Pakistan Case LawNOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-12-1992, which had accepted a revision petition, set aside an order of remand by the District Judge, and maintained the decree for possession through pre-emption granted in favor of the respondent by the Civil Judge. The core legal question was whether the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to establish the plea of waiver, as the document relied upon only concerned the waiver of the right of tenancy and made no mention of abandoning the right of pre-emption, while the respondent's status as a collateral of the vendor was undisputed. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether a document waiving a right of tenancy can be construed as an abandonment of the right of pre-emption?
- Did the petitioner successfully establish the plea of waiver against the pre-emptor?
- Is the High Court justified in setting aside an order of remand and restoring the trial court decree when the plea of waiver is not established?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-12-1992.
2.The facts, in brief, are that the respondent brought a suit for possession through pre-emption. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat. The petitioner's appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, and the case was remanded. The respondent, being aggrieved, challenged the order of the Additional District Judge before the High Court. The learned Judge in Chambers accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of remand and maintained the order of the learned Civil Judge.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption. He has referred to Exh.D/1, whereby the respondent waived his right of tenancy. Nowhere it is mentioned that he had abandoned his right of pre-emption. The respondent based his claim being the collateral of the vendor, and the learned counsel has accepted that the respondent is collateral. The petitioner has absolutely failed to establish the plea of waiver. The judgment of the High Court is not open to exception.
This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. 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.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments