Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2891 2013 SLD 2891 2013 YLR 2555
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 727-D of 2011, decided on 31st January, 2013
CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J
Sh. Zamir Hussain for Petitioner. Ahmed Nawaz Khan for
Respondent

ALI BAHADUR

VS

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 71---Oral evidence must be direct to prove some fact. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss. 5 & 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Pre-emption suit---Gift in favour of defendant made through mutation alleged by plaintiff to be sale---Proof---Person through whom plaintiff came to know about suit mutation for being a witness of Talb-e-Muwathibat deposed as plaintiff's witness that he was informed by Patwari about suit mutation---Non-examination of Patwari and such informer as witnesses by plaintiff---Validity---Patwari could be the best witness to state that transaction was a sale---Inference would be drawn against plaintiff in terms of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for withholding evidence of Patwari---Plaintiff had not deposed to be present at time of mutation or transaction---Plaintiff had not examined informer in support of his stance, thus, he could not say with certainty that suit transaction was a sale---Defendant as beneficiary of gift was not bound to prove gift, rather plaintiff had to stand on his own legs by proving that suit gift was a sale and consideration had been paid by defendant---Plaintiff had failed to prove gift to be a sale---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Rafiq 2004 CLC 1884 and Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq PLD 1989 SC 749 ref. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi 2003 YLR 1496; Muhammad Din v. Ikram Ali 2005 CLC 1099 and Muhammad Munir v. Naseer Ahmed 2004 CLC 1315 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 32---Admission of a party in earlier litigation---Evidentiary value---Such admission could not be used in subsequent proceedings, rather same would be considered with reference to context of earlier litigation. Muqarrab Hussain through Legal Heirs and another v. Pirzada Muhammad Rafiq through Legal Representatives 2001 YLR 1103 rel. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 133---Only one sentence in cross-examination cannot be read in isolation. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Concurrent findings of courts below---Interference in such findings by High Court in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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