Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13(2)

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13(2)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,O.IX,R.8

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 & O.IX, R.8---Pre-emption suit---Date, time and place of making Talb-i-Muwathibat, non-mentioning in plaint---Presumption---Suit filed by pre-emptor was decreed to the extent of half of disputed property and was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Pre-emptor was required to give date, time and place of attaining knowledge and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat under section 13(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---If anyone of such details was missing, then it would be presumed that the same was not made in accordance with law---Even in witness box, pre-emptor did not give full details of date, place and time of making of Talb-i-Muwathibat---Both the Courts below committed material irregularity in holding that Talbs were made in accordance with law---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside s and decrees passed by two courts below and suit filed by pre-emptor was dismissed. Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad Through L.Rs. and others PLD 2007 SC 302 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revision---Scope---Revision dismissed for non-prosecution---Principles---Civil revision once admitted to hearing could not be dismissed in default because it was the duty of revisional court to see if and decree of subordinate court was based on proper exercise of jurisdiction lawfully vested in it and whether jurisdiction had been exercised legally and without any material irregularity---Even if parties to civil revision did not render necessary assistance, the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. would make it imperative for revisional court to make appropriate order, if the and order were found to be in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law in it or the Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others PLD 2000 SC 820 ref. Nemo for Petitioners. Malik Nazar Hussain Arain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th November, 2012. JUDGMENT RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioners…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492