Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 113

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 22

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 33

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 5

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 113---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 22---Pre-emption---Suit for possession through pre-emption filed by predecessor of appellant/plaintiff claiming his preferential right being son of vendor, as his heir, co-sharer in joint khata, khewat holder in mauza, was remanded by High Court---Respondents controverted the suit on many legal/ factual objections including that suit was benami/collusive; that plaintiff was present at time of bargain/execution of sale deed---In second round of litigation suit was decreed by Trial Court but appeal was allowed by appellate Court--- Validity--- Appellate Court dismissed the suit on ground that plaintiff was estopped from filing suit, observing the fact that plaintiff did neither file any replication to controvert the specific assertion of respondents/ defendants that plaintiff was present at time of bargain/ execution of sale nor the defendant was cross-examined on such point; that relationship between vendor and appellant (being father and son) was cordial; that vendor being an aged man was dependent on appellant; that plaintiff failed to cross-examine crucial portions of statements of defendants’ witnesses---Evidence of defendants remained uncrossed/unchallenged/un-rebutted---Conduct of appellant/pre-emptor suggested the ill-motive behind the suit---Mala fide on part of pre-emptor was apparent---Suit of appellant/ pre-emptor was liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation and barred by law to the extent of one defendant---Appellate Court had rightly accepted respondent’s appeal and dismissed the suit---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Mian Shah Nawaz Khan v. Allah Ditta and others 1982 CLC 1348 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 113--- Statement in Cross-examination---Statement of witness which remained uncrossed/unchallenged and was not impeached by questioning in cross-examination, then same would be deemed to have been admitted. Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 33---Appellant’s suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed by Trial…

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