Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 13,31(c)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5,29(2)(b)

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- ----Ss. 13 & 31(c)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 29(2)(b)---Suit for pre-emption---Failure to mention time and date of Talb-e-Muwathibat---Computation of time from knowledge of pre-emptor---Scope--Place of performance of Talb-e-muwathibat in the plaint was ambiguous, as only reference to the property had been made without clearly disclosing the location or Khasra number of the property---High Court taking a lenient view, assumed that pre-emptor (petitioner) had mentioned the place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, but another important ingredient viz. time of Talb-e-Muwathibat had not been mentioned at all in the plaint---Date, time and place of Talb-e-muwathibat had to be mentioned in the plaint and if any of them was missing, suit of pre-emptor was liable to be dismissed---Logic behind said principle was that pre-emptor must come with clear facts in his plaint, so that he should lead his evidence accordingly and may not improve his case during the trial, nor may make a departure there from---Vendee (respondent) contended that after purchasing suit property, he had constructed a house on it by spending a huge amount, whereas pre-emptor in his cross-examination stated that vendee did not raise any construction after institution of suit---Trial Court appointed Commissioner to ascertain market value of vendee's house, who reported that there was a cemented construction in an area of 4 to 5 Kanals---Pre-emptor filed objection to said report of Commissioner, only objecting to the market value assessed, but did not dispute the age or venue of constriction, which meant that construction was admittedly raised in the suit property---Construction could not have been raised within days or months but might have consumed at least a year, which could have not gone unnoticed from the co-villagers, therefore, contention raised by pre-emptor in his cross-examination was not believable---Pre-emptor failed to prove the date of taking over of physical possession of suit property by the vendee and evidence clearly suggested that vendee took possession of suit property, much earlier, than as alleged by 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