9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973. 2. Determining the effect of appellate court decisions on pre-emption suits. 3. Consideration of the principle of re-hearing in appeal cases. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973, specifically focusing on whether an appellate court confirming a pre-emption decree amounts to passing a new decree for pre-emption. The case involved a property sold by defendant No. 4 to defendants Nos. 1 to 3, with the appellant, daughter of defendant No. 4, claiming a right to pre-empt. The trial court initially decreed the suit, which was later appealed. The High Court, considering the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973, dismissed the suit based on Section 3 of the Act, which barred courts from passing pre-emption decrees post its commencement. In analyzing the effect of appellate court decisions on pre-emption suits, the judgment referred to the principle of re-hearing in appeal cases. Citing the case of Lachweshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhury, the court highlighted that an appeal is akin to a re-hearing, giving the appellate court the authority to consider new facts and events. Therefore, if the High Court were to dismiss the appeal, it would effectively be passing a new decree for pre-emption. As a result, the High Court's decision to allow the appeal was deemed appropriate, as confirming the lower court's decree would constitute passing a decree for pre-emption by the appellate court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, acknowledging the High Court's decision as legally sound. The judgment emphasized the significance of the re-hearing principle in appeal cases, affirming that appellate courts possess the authority to re-examine facts and events to render just decisions. No costs were awarded in the case, concluding the legal proceedings.
|
