- S. 3 — Supermacy of Shariah — Is to be enforced in the manner as envisaged — If a court finds that a particular provision of law is against the injunction of Islam, it is not enjoined upon it to find out as to what is the law according to Shariah on a particular point and to decide a case according to such law unless the same is amended. If a law is held to be ineffective by the verdict of the Shariat Court or the High Court that may be relevant in the cases to be decided in future and not to the pending proceedings, except that in a case of pre-emption, the principle that a pre-emptor must have a prior right of purchase at three stages, i.e. at the time of sale, institution of the suit and the decree in his favour, may have bearing on the pending pre-emption cases — This principal is peculiar feature of the pre-emption law. The cases governed by other laws would generaly be decided according to the principle embodied in Section 6 of General Clauses Act, under S. 11 (I) of the Ordinance and section 4 (10) of the Act. Mst. Fatima Bi v. Farzand Ali1992 SCR 236 (F)
- S. 4 and 2 (B) word ‘Court’ defined — Whether a particular law is against the Shariah or not — Cannot be raised in this Court. Shaukat Hussain v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (H)
- S. 4 (5) — Before deciding that any provision of law is repugnant to Shariah — Court has to specify the date on which the decision shall take effect – Since the High Court failed to fix the date on which the decision was to take effect the judgment has no practical effect — Consequently the Prior Purchase Act continues to be the law of the land.Mst. Fatima Bi v.Farzand Ali 1992 SCR236 (G)
error: Content is protected !!