| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 1165 2011 SLD 1165 2011 YLR 1304 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 2146 of 2005, decision Dated: 23-12-2010.
TARIQ, JAVAID, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Baleegh uz Zaman Ch.
Respondent(s) by: Mian Sarfraz Ullah, and Syed Abdul Hayee Gillani
Civil Revision No. 2146 of 2005, decision Dated: 23-12-2010.
TARIQ, JAVAID, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Baleegh uz Zaman Ch.
Respondent(s) by: Mian Sarfraz Ullah, and Syed Abdul Hayee Gillani
SHEHNAZ AKHTAR AND 4 OTHERS
VS
AKBAR ALI
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Section: 2A,13
Law: Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)
Section: 3
Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S.13---Suit for pre-emption---Making of Talbs---Suit for pre-emption had concurrently been dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court---Necessary ingredients to establish right of pre-emption, were to mention time, date and place of making Talbs which were not mentioned in the plaint nor any evidence in that respect was produced---Such omission was fatal to the case of the plaintiff---Suit, in circumstances, was rightly dismissed---Concurrent s of courts below, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction by High Court. Saad Muhammad and others v. Faqir Muhammad PLD 2007 SC 302; Fazal-e-Subhani v. Muhammad Sabir and others PLD 2005 SC 977 and Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Fida Muhammad PLD 2003 SC 315 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: TARIQ JAVAID, J.--- It is contended that the petitioners pre-empted sale of the suit land measuring 12 Kanals 6 Marlas '"situated in village Kharian purchased by the vendee in the sum of Rs.1,00,000. It is maintained that the petitioners had a superior right of pre-emption; that Talb-e-Muwathibat was fulfilled as soon as the petitioners gained the knowledge of sale which was registered sale-deed dated 8-4-1992 and at the same time he performed Talb-e-Muwathibat and then sent a notice for Talb-e-Ishhad in presence of the witnesses through registered A.D. He claimed his superior right on the basis of Shafi-khaleet, Shafi Shareek and Shafi jar. 2. Suit of pre-emption was resisted by the respondent. Issues were framed. Both the parties produced evidence oral as well as documentary. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment dated 9-3-2004. Appeal against the said judgment was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14-6-2005. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the courts below have erred in law while deciding issue regarding maintainability of the suit on the basis of section 2-A of Pre-emption Act, 1991. According to the…
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