Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 804 = 1992 CLC 1372
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.272 of 1991, decided on 29th February, 1992.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Mirza Anwar Baig for Petitioners. Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ and another---Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD            NAWAZ           and            5 others-- Respondents

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 148

  Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----S. 15---Superior right of pre-emption ---Quantum of proof  Certified copy of pedigree-table placed on file in ex parte proof in the first round of litigation was inadvertently omitted from being put in evidence at trial which was read in  evidence  as  additional  evidence---Validity  Lower Appellate Court upon preponderance of evidence rightly found relationship of pre-emptor with vendor established on record---No legal flaw existed in admitting certified copy of pedigree-table in evidence which already existed on file and about which there was no doubt of its authenticity or relevance---Lower Appellate Court rightly took such document on file for reading it as additional evidence-- Defendants, despite time and opportunity, led no evidence in rebuttal-- Superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiff was, thus, established on record. Haji Ishtiaq Ahmad and 2 others v. Bakhshaya and 7 others 1976 SCMR 420; Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Irshad Ahmad and another PLD 1982 SC 282; Khurshid Akbar v. Mian Manzur Ahmad and another 1982 SCMR 824; Dost Muhammad and others v. Nazar Hussain Khan and others 1984 SCMR 325; Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh and another 1986 SCMR 849; Hakim Ali and another v. Iftikhar Alunad Khan 1990 SCMR 1571 and Muhammad Irshad v. Ch. Fazal Haq and 5 others 1991 SCMR 2149 reC   Discretion--- ----Exercise of---Where power of discretion being a judicial act was found to have been exercised arbitrarily or on wrong notion or conception of law, Appellate/Revisional Court was under obligation to interfere with it and pass order which would be in consonance with justice and in accordance with' law. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S. 148---Extension of time for deposit of purchase price in Court---Plaintiff had originally obtained ex parte decree---Ex parte decree having been set aside, plaintiffs conceded full purchase price in Court---Events subsequent to ex parte decree channelling in the off shoot of main litigation viz. plaintiffs having sold such land against a higher price were never disclosed to Court, thus, disentitling them to exercise of discretion in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register