| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1100 2022 SLD 1100 2022 SCMR 1522 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 2222 of 2019, decision Dated: 04-03-2022, hearing Date : 04-03-2022 (Against the judgment Dated 21.03.2019 Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 997 of 2017)
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Maulvi Anwar ul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore)
Civil Petition No. 2222 of 2019, decision Dated: 04-03-2022, hearing Date : 04-03-2022 (Against the judgment Dated 21.03.2019 Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 997 of 2017)
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Maulvi Anwar ul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore)
IJAZ AHMED
VS
NOOR UL AMEEN
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Section: 6(1)(c),13(3)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)------Ss. 6(1)(c) , 13(3)---Suit for pre-emption---Shafi Jar---Failure to fulfill the legal requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad/pre-emptor deposed that the pre-empted land was adjacent to his land with common source of irrigation but during cross-examination he stated that there was no official canal/irrigation rather the lands were irrigated from a river---Pre-emptor’s witness also showed ignorance to khasra numbers of passage and source of common irrigation; he further admitted that there was no Warabandi and neither the pre-emptor was co-sharer in the Khata, nor there was any sanctioned khal---Patwari Consolidation had also deposed that there was no joint khata between the parties and, there was no passage or common source of irrigation nor any sanctioned water---Pre-emptor in his evidence deposed that he made Talb-i-Muwathibat on 27-08-2009 but in his cross-examination he admitted that in the last week of August 2009 he was in a different city---Pre-emptor’s witness in his cross-examination stated that at the time of reducing the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, no person was present except the pre-emptor but to make some improvement, voluntarily stated that another witness was also present---Pre-emptor’s witness in his examination-in-chief stated that notice of Talb-i-Ishhad through registered post could not be delivered to the vendee as there was no person by the name of the pre-emptor and he returned the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Attesting witnesses of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad did not depose to have the knowledge of contents of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---All the courts below had concurrently reached to the correct conclusion that the pre-emptor had miserably failed to fulfill the legal requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13(3)--- Talb-i-Ishhad, notice of--- Such notice must be served on the vendor through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. Mir Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Haider and others PLD 2020 SC 233 ref. (c) Civil Procedure…
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