| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2135 2023 SLD 2135 2023 SCMR 1113 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 840 of 2017, decided on 6th April, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 135 of 2010) Date of hearing: 6th April, 2023.
Present: Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Salman Mansoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Kabeer, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 840 of 2017, decided on 6th April, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 135 of 2010) Date of hearing: 6th April, 2023.
Present: Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Salman Mansoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Kabeer, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) through LRs---Appellant
VERSUS
TAJ MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) through LRs and others---Respondents
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Section: 12(2),13(3)
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss. 13(2) & 13(3)---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Pre-requisites---Talb-i-muwathibat and Talb-i-ishhad---If performance of a single Talb is skipped or not proved, the superstructure and edifice of the suit for possession through pre-emption falls on the ground. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13(3)---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Notice of 'Talb-i-ishhad', sending of--- Service on only one of the two vendees---Effect---Not service in the eyes of law---In the present case to prove the notice of Talb-i-ishhad, although the plaintiff/pre-emptor had produced the Postman, however, a bare perusal of his statement showed that the notices were not directly delivered to the defendants/vendees "T" and "R"---Postman stated that it was defendant/vendee "B" who had received the notices on behalf of the other two defendants/vendees---Similarly, the notice sent to defendant/vendee "AJ" was received by another defendant "AG"---Such fact was also admitted by the plaintiff himself in his amended suit filed by him before the learned Trial Court---Suit for possession through pre-emption had been rightly dismissed---Appeal was dismissed. Munawar Hussain v. Afaq Ahmed 2013 SCMR 721 ref. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13(3)---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Pre-requisite---Notice of 'Talb-i-ishhad'---Service of Talb-i-ishhad is a pre-requisite and if the performance of the same is not proved beyond any shadow as well as in the prescribed form, then the whole structure falls on the ground. JUDGMENT SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- C.M.A. No. 2175/2022 Through this application, the applicant seeks setting aside of the ex-parte order. For reasons mentioned in this application and subject to all just exceptions, this C.M.A. is allowed and the ex-parte order is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 840/2017 2. Through this appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the Regular Second Appeal…
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