Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1409 2015 SLD 1409 2015 CLC 441
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.67-P of 2012, decision dated: 9-12-2013
MIAN FASIHUL MULK, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

AMIR NAWAZ KHAN

VS

WALI JAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)-------S. 13---Talbs, performance of---Requirements---Witnesses of plaintiff were unanimous on date, time and place of making jumping demand by him---"Majlis"---Connotation---Both the courts below had taken into consideration minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of witnesses of plaintiff---Plaintiff and his witnesses had corroborated the assertion that the moment plaintiff came to know the sale, he immediately made demand in the same sitting by declaring his intention to exercise right of pre-emption---Plaintiff after fulfilling requirement of immediate demand served notice of Talb-i-lshhad wherein he specifically mentioned the date when he acquired knowledge of sale transaction--Plaintiff had complied with legal requirements of S.13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987---Both the courts below had indulged themselves in strict scrutiny of oral evidence to find faults, minor omissions and contradictions which was against the law---Rules and standards for appraisal of evidence in civil cases were different from those of criminal cases---Both the courts below had misread and non-read evidence of plaintiff available on record---Oral evidence to the effect that everyone had the knowledge of sale would not mean that he had knowledge of the same---Knowledge of other persons could not be presumed to he knowledge of the suitor---Plaintiff had produced copy of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in evidence along with postal receipt and strong presumption would be that said notice had been received by the addressee---Plaintiff had performed Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with law---Both the courts below had acted in disregard of law and principle of appraisal of evidence---Impugned s were not based on proper appreciation of law and same were liable to be set aside---Plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining sale price within a period of 30 days---Revision was accepted in circumstances. Muhammad Siddique and another v. Syed Zawar Hussain Abidi and 9 others PLD 1976 SC 572 and Mst. Sabiran Bi v. Ahmad Khan and another 2000 SCMR 847 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional…
🔒
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