Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Where possession has not been delivered and/or the sale deed has been executed but not registered as yet, a pre-emptor, of a suit for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, would have no notice that sale had taken place, thereby enabling him to exercise his right. In such cases the 'first part' of Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would have no application; rather the case(s) would fall within the 'second part' thereof. The period of limitation for the cases falling in the 'second part' of Article 10 will be one year from when the sale instrument is registered and not from the date of its execution----This legal case involves a dispute over the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The key question is whether the limitation period begins one year from the date of execution of a sale deed or from the date of its registration. The respondents purchased a property through a sale deed executed on 8.5.1975 but registered on 26.5.1975. The appellants filed a pre-emption suit on 25.5.1976, which led to conflicting judgments. The appellants argue that Article 10 of the Limitation Act prescribes a one-year limitation period for pre-emption suits, starting from either the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration. They assert that Section 47 of the Registration Act is irrelevant to Article 10. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the period of limitation should begin from the date of execution, as mentioned in the plaint, and rely on Section 47 of the Registration Act to support their stance. The court carefully interprets Article 10, emphasizing the importance of the word "or" in distinguishing between cases where possession is delivered and cases where the sale deed is registered. It asserts that Section 47 of the Registration Act is not applicable to the limitation period for pre-emption suits, as it only applies inter se the parties to the transaction. The court emphasizes that the purpose of the limitation period is to give notice to the prospective pre-emptor of the sale. The court cites legal precedents, including Ch. Shafaat Mahmood?s case (2001 CLC 751), Chaudhry Muhammad Yusuf Vs. Ghulam Muhammad (2000 YLR 2178), and Muhammad Sarwar?s case (PLD 1951 Lahore 169). These precedents support the interpretation that the limitation period for pre-emption suits begins from the date of registration, not the date of execution.

Summary: Background:This case involves a civil appeal brought before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir by Mohammad Azam Khan, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The High Court had declared Mohammad Azam Khan disqualified from contesting the General Elections 2016 for the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly.----Issues:Whether the High Court's judgment was legally sound.Whether the qualifications and disqualifications under the relevant laws were properly applied to Mohammad Azam Khan.Whether the appellant's receipt of double salary and issuance of illegal orders warranted disqualification.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, after considering arguments from both sides, found that the High Court's judgment was not legally sustainable. The Court emphasized that qualifications and disqualifications are distinct concepts, and only qualifications explicitly stated in the law can be applied. It was noted that the disqualifications added through an amendment to the ordinance were not recognized by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. Therefore, the Court concluded that Mohammad Azam Khan could not be disqualified based on these additional disqualifications. The Court also stressed the importance of elected representatives embodying qualities such as law-abidingness, good character, and honesty. However, it suggested that amendments should be made to the constitution to explicitly define such qualifications. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. No costs were awarded.-----Citations/Precedents:The State through Ehtesab Cell v/s Zahirud Din & 8 others [2000 P.Cr. L.J. 1105]Kiramatullah Khan v/s Haji Abdur Rehman Khan [1999 CLC 1746]Sardar Muhammad Razaq Inqalabi & another v/s Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan [PLJ 1996 65 (FB)]Ch. Abdul Majid v/s Chief Election Commissioner, Azad Jammu & Kashmir & 3 others [PLD 1985 Azad J&K 83]Nusrat Fatima v/s Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir & 2 others [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 93]Chief Secretary/Referring Authority, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government v/s Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan [PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 95]Sardar Khan Bahadur Khan v/s Chief Secretary, Azad Government of Jammu & Kashmir [PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 199]Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others [PLD 2012 SC 1089]Ishaq Khan Khakwani and others vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif [PLD 2015 Supreme Court 275]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.