Pre-emption suit decreed on the basis of compromise-

Citation Name : 2018 CLC 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ISHAQ
S. 21---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S.34---Pre-emption suit decreed on the basis of compromise---Setting aside of the decree holding that suit should be deemed to be pending and proceeded from the stage of compromise--- abatement of suit---Contradiction between order of the Court and provision of law---Effect---Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise but said decree was set aside with the direction to the Trial Court to proceed from the stage of compromise---Trial Court decreed the suit but Appellate Court dismissed the same---Contention of defendant was that suit had abated after 01-08-1986---Validity---Law of pre-emption was changed when Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was promulgated---If any decree or judgment was passed before 01-08-1986 then S.34 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 allowed the case to proceed further irrespective of repeal of Act of 1913 and if not then suit would stand abated---When order with regard to remand of case was passed then new law of pre emption i.e. Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was in field and also its S.34---None of the parties raised question/objection or sought determination of jurisdiction of Court under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913---Proceedings were continued due to order of Court with regard to remand of suit---Specific provision of law and not the order of the Court would prevail---No decree remained in favour of plaintiff after setting aside of consent decree on the cut-off date i.e. 01-08-1986 and suit had to be abated---Decree by the Trial Court was hit by S.34 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Proceedings conducted by the Courts below were not justified and revision stood abated by the operation of law---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 MLD 851 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mst. SAKINA KHATOON
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASGHAR
O. XXII, R. 1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Death of a party---Application for abatement of suit---Scope---Defendant had already been arrayed through his legal heirs when suit was filed---Plaintiff had claimed that defendants had misused power of attorney and sold the suit property after obtaining sale consideration---Suit would not abate merely that defendant had died as right to sue with regard to suit property and alleged conduct of said defendant still survived---Application for abatement of suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 SCMR 670 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE BHATTI
Side Opponent : The COOPERATIVE JUDGE, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Ss. 7(b), (e), (h) & (p)---Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920), S. 61---Creditors of defunct Cooperative Finance Corporations (CFC)---Priority of debts---Cooperative Board appointed as liquidator, powers of---Scope---Provisions of S. 7 of Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 that conferred power on Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation ("PCBL"), to cancel agreements was, inter alia, for the general creditors of a CFC to be treated fairly and equally---Any discrimination by the erstwhile management/ controllers of the entity under liquidation for benefiting some over its other creditors belonging to the same class must therefore be curtailed and prevented---However, this would be subject to any lawful scheme notified by the PCBL or the Provincial Government under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 for settlement or adjustment of claims by depositors---Otherwise the settled principle of law for distribution of assets among the same class of creditors of an insolvent was done 'pro rata' through proportionate abatement of claims as envisaged in S. 61 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920---By such method, all the creditors of equal standing, were put to equal risk/loss in case of non- realization of their respective debts in entirety.

Citation Name : 2016 PLD 358 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA
Side Opponent : Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN
S. 12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Merger, doctrine of"---Exceptions---Appeal/revision/writ not disposed of on merits but on some other grounds---Doctrine of merger did not apply, where an appeal/revision/writ had been dismissed because of non-prosecution; or lack of jurisdiction; or lack of competence/ maintainability; or was barred by law; or barred by time; or because of withdrawal of the matter by the party; or due to lack of locus standi; or where it was decided on the basis of a compromise, if the very basis of the compromise by the party to the lis or even a stranger showing prejudice to his rights was not under challenge on the ground of fraud; or it was rendered infructuous or disposed of as having borne fruit; or due to abatement ; or where the writ was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy; or where the writ was dismissed on the point of laches---Said exceptions were also be attracted to the decision(s) of the Supreme Court, where applicable---Where, however a case fell within the said exceptions the forum for an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was the one against whose decision the matter had come and been disposed of by the higher forum in a manner stated in the said exceptions.