Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3852 2016 SLD 3852 2016 YLR 2047
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 120-B of 2012, decided on 12th December, 2014. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2014.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE
Asghar Ali Khan for Appellant. Zahid-ul-Haq for
Respondents.

FALAK NIAZ--Plaintiff

VS

. AMAL DIN AND another

Law:

Section:

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)----- -----S. 13-----Talbs, performance of-----Requirements-----Witnesses being not truthful-----Effect-----Variations in pleadings and proof-----Pre-emptor was bound to prove the time, place and declaration of his intention to pre-empt the suit land by producing truthful witnesses-----Witnesses of pre-emptor were not truthful-----Findings of both the courts below with regard to performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat were perverse and against law-----Pre-emptor had failed to prove the factum of Talb-i-Muwathibat-----Pre-emptor was bound to prove the sending of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad-----Pre-emptor had failed to produce and exhibit the acknowledgement-due which was mandatory in view of the provision of S. 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987-----Such non-compliance thereof was fatal to the claim of pre-emptor-----Registered envelopes were not delivered to the vendees and no notice had been served upon them-----Pre-emptor had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat as well as Talb-i-Ishhad in circumstances. Muhammad Zahid v. Dr. Muhammad Ali PLD 2014 SC 488 ref. Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar 2013 SCMR 866; Muhammad Zahid v. Dr. Muhammad Ali PLD 2014 SC 488; Dr. Nosheen Latif's case 2010 YLR 1190; Muhammad Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain 2004 SCMR 737; Binyameen and 3 others v. Ch. Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336 and Ghafoor Khan (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Israr Ahmad 2011 SCMR 1545 rel. (b) Pleadings----- -----Variation in pleadings and proof was not permissible under the law. (c) Administration of justice----- -----If law required a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in the same way otherwise it would be considered non-compliance of the legislative intent. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE:----------- Through this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of two revision petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein, and, that both the petitions arise out of a single judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.166/13 of 2011 by Additional District Judge-III, Bannu. The particulars of the said…
🔒
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