| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 4031 1996 SLD 4031 , 1996 PLD 73 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 107 of 1995, decided on 12th June, 1996.
Presented By: Before Sardar Muhammad Raza, J
Kh. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner No. 1. Muhammad Ashraf Hashim for
Respondent
Civil Revision No. 107 of 1995, decided on 12th June, 1996.
Presented By: Before Sardar Muhammad Raza, J
Kh. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner No. 1. Muhammad Ashraf Hashim for
Respondent
SHAH HUSSAIN and 9 others---Petitioners
VERSUS
KHANI ZAMAN---Respondent
Law: North West Frontier Province Preemption Act, (X of 1987)
Section: 13
North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)-- ----S. 13---Factum of Talb-i-Mawathibat with required details, not alleged in plaint---Such factum was also not proved by evidence---Effect---Question of Talb-i-Muwathibat being pure question of fact, same was bound to be mentioned in pleadings---Assertion in plaint showed that Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i -Ishhad were performed on one and the same day---Plaintiff in his evidence, however, set up different case to the effect that Talb-i-Muwathibat was exercised two days prior to Talb-i-Ishhad---No evidence could be led on any question of fact which was contrary to that alleged in plaint---Provisions of O.VI, C.P.C. specifically require that all questions of fact be mentioned in pleadings, leaving aside evidence---Question of Talb-i-Muwathibat with details thereof, being most important must be mentioned with details---Question of Talb-i-Muwathibat was important for it was only the factum of Talb-i-Muwathibat that activates right of pre-emption and without such Talb even the right of pre-emption does not come into existence---Details of Talb-i-Muwathibat were important for in the light of such details regarding time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat, period of limitation for Talb-i-Ishhad could be calculated ---Talb-i-Muwathibat was neither distinctly alleged nor proved in the light of pleadings ---Talb-i-Muwathibat unless proved, no right of pre-emption would come into activation---Courts below had wrongly appreciated evidence and had fallen into material irregularity in decreeing plaintiff's suit for pre-emption--Findings of Courts below were set aside and plaintiff's suit dismissed in circumstances. Kh. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner No. 1. Muhammad Ashraf Hashim for Respondent Date of hearing: 12th June, 1996 JUDGMENT Through Mutation No. 661 attested on 22-8-1989 Shah Hussain son of Farman Shah purchased 212/448 share in Khasra No. 106 measuring 9 Kanals, 6 Marlas in Village Kotha, Tehsil and District Haripur. Through yet another Mutation No.664 attested on 21-9-1989 the same vendee Shah Hussain purchased 57/448 share from Bedar Hussain Shah etc. in the same Khasra. Both the transactions…