Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 6

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for pre-emption--Defendants contended that Talb-e-Muwathibat was not proved as the person who informed the plaintiff's witness about sale was not produced in the court---Validity---Only the person informing the pre-emptor was required to be produced in the court in order to test the veracity of his statement---Plaintiff had fulfilled the requirement by producing the witness who informed him of sale---Re-examination of evidence was not permissible in revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings could not be replaced by different view formed by the revisional court---No legal defect could be pointed out in impugned ---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 2007 SC 302; PLJ 2006 SC 2030; 2001 SCMR 798; 1996 SCMR 813 and PLD 1994 SC 291 ref. PLD 2006 SC 230 and PLD 1994 SC 291 fol. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revision---Scope---Con current findings could not be replaced by different view formed by revisional court. PLD 1994 SC 291 fol. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE:---.--- This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-4-2003 whereby appeal filed by present petitioners was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the instant suit was filed by respondent on 10-4-1997, written statement was tiled on 29-7-1997 and seven issues were framed. Present respondents adduced two witnesses along with plaintiff who appeared as P.W.1. On the reverse, present petitioners who were defendant No.3 in the suit appeared and made statement. The learned Trial Court; after recording of the evidence decreed the suit on 28-5-2001 of the present respondents to the extent of 1/2 share thereby accepting the superior right of pre-emption of both the parties on equal footing, against the said judgment and decree, appeal was tiled which was dismissed on 16-4-2003 hence the present judgment and decree dated 16-4-2003 has been called into question through this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that since the superior right of pre-emption was…

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