Pre-emption

  1. Pre-emption right was a creation of a statute and could not be treated by the Courts differently from other right. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mirza Begum 1992 SCR 190 (E)
  2. Right of — Nature of ownership — No law has been cited that in the circumstances of the case the respondent had no right of pre-emption because the nature of the ownership was provisional — Contention not tenable. Hassan Muhammad v. Muhammad Din 1997 SCR 292 (A)
  3. Pre-emption — Necessary party — Limitation for filing suit — Locus standi — First vendee transferred the land after seven years of filing suit — The rule of lis pendence is attracted — Subsequent vendee was not a necessary party and he has no locus standi to file the appeal. Khalid Mehmood v. Najeeb Khan and others 2003 SCR 547 (A)
  4. Pre-emption — Necessary party — Petitioner who has been held not a necessary party his appeal did not merit any consideration — Ground not taken in appeal by first vendee — Could not be considered in appeal filed on behalf of person who was not aggrieved in law. Khalid Mehmood v. Najeeb Khan and others 2003 SCR 547 (B)
  5. Pre-emptor had to establish his right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of filing the suit and at the time of first decree — Mere fact of vendees loosing their equal right with pre-emptor at the time of first decree would not provide further ground for pre-emptor for grant of a decree. Muhammad Ilyas v. Ali Asghar and 7 others 2003 SCR 520 (A)
  6. Pre-emption suit — proxy litigations — rival pre-emptors filed suits — one of the pre-emptors has not challenged the concurrent findings of High Court — contention of pre-emptor-appellant that decree may be granted in favour of non-appealing pre-emptor — held: no doubt, the Court is vested with the powers if according to the facts of any case, for the ends of justice to grant relief to a party who has not come in appeal — failure of one pre-emptor to file appeal has created a legal right in favour of the other — in presence of the party who has been given preference by the Court, relief cannot be granted to an absentee—appellant has to protect his own rights and he cannot litigate on behalf of pre-emptor against his own right. Further held: law does not recognize proxy litigation and in pre-emption suit where vendee comes forward to protect the rights of rival pre-emptor, inference can be drawn that such pre-emptor has filed suit in collusion with the vendee. Muhammad Yaqub v. Zaman Ali & 6 others 2014 SCR 684 (A)
  7. Partial pre-emption — not allowed — Right of pre-emption is recognized by the Statute and it is a right of substitution — A pre-emptor must take over the whole bargain — It is not upon the choice of a pre-emptor that he shall take the best part of the pre-empted property, he likes and, leave the worst part. M. Rafique v. Qurban H. &  anothers 2016 SCR 796 (A) PLD 1973 SC 444 rel.
  8. —Pre-emptor must have a right of pre-emption at three stages; (i) at the time of sale; (ii) at the time of filing of suit, and; (iii) at the time of decree—improvements of status at a belated stage confers no right. Munshi Khan & others v. Mehboob Khan 2017 SCR 129 (E)  PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 172 rel.
  9. —pre-emption decree—non-depositing of decretal amount within time fixed by Court—effect of non-depositing of decretal amount—dismissal of suit—District Judge, through judgment dated 19.05.2010, fixed the period of two months for depositing the decretal amount with the condition that the failure on the part of plaintiff-respondent, shall entail dismissal of the suit. Period expired on 19.07.2010. The respondents filed appeal before the High Court on 26.07.2010, within limitation but after expiry of period fixed by Court for depositing the decretal amount. Held: the question of operation of the stay order or otherwise would have arisen, if the plaintiff-respondents had filed the appeal and obtained the stay order prior to the expiry of the period fixed for depositing the decretal amount or even if the learned High Court had extended the period for depositing the decretal amount originally fixed by the district Judge, which is missing in the case in hand. Had the High Court extended the time for depositing the decretal amount suo moto and fixed a fresh date for depositing the same, then the respondents would have case but in absence of any such eventuality, they had already been non-suited. Muhammad Razzaq v. Manzoor Hussain & 3 others 2019 SCR 794 (A) PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 94, PLD 1966 SC 983 ref
error: Content is protected !!