Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 634 2015 SLD 634 2015 YLR 229
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 639 of 2008, decided on 30th May, 2014. dates of hearing: 28th, 30th May, 2014
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JEHANGIR, J
Ch. Amjad Hussain for Petitioner. Sh. Naveed Shehryar for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ through Attorney

VS

MUHAMMAD RIAZ

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Talbs, performance of---Requirements---Revision---Decree sheet, non-filing of---Effect---Discrepancies with regard to performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat were of minor nature which were bound to occur as a lapse of time and same could not be fatal---Plaintiff had failed to produce Booking Registry Clerk of the post office and postman before the Trial Court to prove that notice of Talb-i-Ishhad had not only been dispatched through post but same was actually received by the defendant---Registered post acknowledgement-due was also not got exhibited by the plaintiff in evidence---Personal service or refusal to accept the post on behalf of vendee/addressee should be on record which had to be proved through official of postal department---Mere endorsement on acknowledgement-due card to the effect that same was served or refused would not constitute service when vendee had appeared and denied the said endorsement---Pre-emptor was not only required to prove the sending of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to the defendant but he was bound to prove the delivery of said notice by production of postman and failure to do such was fatal for pre-emptor---Pre-emptor had failed to prove notice of Talb-i-Ishhad and his suit could not succeed---Defendant could not be bound to suffer merely on technicality, who on the other hand had a very good case on merits---Courts were custodian of the rights and same could not be washed away due to the defects committed in the procedure---When composite was passed and challenged in revision then no procedural illegality and rather technicalities should stand in the way of disposal of said revision on merits---Defendant had brought on record the attested copy of decree sheet prepared by the Appellate Court---Appellate Court had decided the appeal as well as cross-objection through consolidated and non-filing of decree sheet of one case along with the consolidated could not render revision incompetent---Impugned and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court were restored---Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed---Revision…
🔒
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