Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1981 2017 SLD 1981 2017 CLC 892

C.R. No. 36-D of 2010, hearing Date : 22-09-2016
MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE
Sheikh Zameer Hussain for Petitioners. Raja Shahid Mehmood for
Respondents.

MOHAMMAD ZAHEER & ANOTHER

VS

GHAFFAR AHMED & ANOTHER

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13---Talbs performance of---Requirements---Pre-emptor was aware of the sale transaction much before the performance of alleged Talb-i-Muwathibat---Talb-i-Muwathibat was not performed in conformity with law---If pre-emptor had failed to perform the first talb i.e. Talb-i-Muwathibat which was condition precedent to the second talb i.e. Talb-i-Ishhad then his suit could not be decreed---Service of vendees' father could not be considered a valid service in the eye of law notwithstanding the fact that postman was produced---Notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, in circumstances, was sent to vendees through their father---Said notice was sent to attorney without having the regard that no power of attorney in favour of vendees' father was ever executed---No notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, in circumstances, was sent to the vendees and service of notice on their father did not meet the requirement of law---Both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, therefore, were not validly performed by the pre-emptors---Right of pre-emption stood extinguished in circumstances---No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the courts below---Revision was dismissed accordingly. Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan and others 2015 SCMR 311 and Nawab Ali through General Attorney v. Javaid Iqbal Nabi and others PLD 2009 Lah. 49 rel. THIS JUDGMENT PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE:---.--- This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below vide Judgments and decrees dated 30.10.2006 and 26.10.2009, respectively, whereby the suit and appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed on account of non-fulfilment of Talbs, hence, this revision petition. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition have adequately been elaborated in the impugned judgments; therefore, I need not to detail the factual background of the case. 3. There is no denying of the fact that the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad issued to the vendees-respondents was delivered and received by their father; hence, the learned Courts below besides holding that Talb-i-Muwathibat was not performed in accordance with the provision of…
🔒
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