| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1244 2013 SLD 1244 2013 MLD 31 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2011, decision Dated: 24-06-2011.
CH. SHAHID SAEED, JUSTICE
Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya for Petitioner.
Civil Revision No. 1939 of 2011, decision Dated: 24-06-2011.
CH. SHAHID SAEED, JUSTICE
Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya for Petitioner.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
VS
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AND OTHERS
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Section: 13
Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S 13---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad---Concurrent dismissal of suit---Validity---Plaintiff in his examination-in-chief had not mentioned that he at once exercised his right of pre-emption after coming to know about the transaction---Plaintiff had not disclosed that he announced his right of pre-emption in presence of the informer and had produced only a single witness for Talb-e-Muwathibat, who was the informer---Talb-e-Muwathibat must be announced in presence of the informer and two witnesses---Talb-e-Ishhad was not performed in accordance with law and notices for the same were written by a clerk who was not produced as a witness---Plaintiff had not successfully proved the talbs in accordance with law. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: CH. SHAHID SAEED, JUSTICE:---.--- The instant civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below by way of which suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learnedtrial court vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-2010. Petitioner preferred an appeal which also met with the same fate by the learned appellate court on 11-3-2011. Hence this civil revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against law and facts and also based upon mis-reading and non-reading of evidence; the petitioner has successfully proved the requirements of talbs through his oral as well as documentary evidence but both the subordinate courts did not consider whole the evidence produced by the petitioner in a proper way and have also not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has clearly mentioned in his plaint that he came to know about the impugned sale on 27-2-2005 and he at once announced his right of pre-emption in presence of informer Muhammad Asghar but during the cross-examination P.W.2/petitioner admitted that he came to know…
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