| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 1496 1981 SLD 1496 1981 PLD 364 |
Lahore High Court
First Appeal from Original Order No. 53 of 1973, decided on 16th December, 1979. DATE of hearing : 14th November, 1979
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant. Mushtaq Raj for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Nemo for
Respondent No. 4
First Appeal from Original Order No. 53 of 1973, decided on 16th December, 1979. DATE of hearing : 14th November, 1979
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Allah Wasaya Malik for Appellant. Mushtaq Raj for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Nemo for
Respondent No. 4
GHULAM NABI AND 4 others
VS
ABDULLAH AND 3 others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959-- -- R. 7-Payment o settlement fee, held, a condition precedent for acquisition of permanent settlement of land. Mst. Allah Rakhi v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others P L D 1969 Lab. 168 ; Sh. Muhammad Ikhlas and others v. Muhammad Ismail P L D 1963 S C 466 ; Mehra v. Zahur Ahmad P L D 1971 Lah. 834 ; Baj Din and another v. Din Muhammad and 2 others P L D 1972 Lah. 567 and Sardar Muhammad v, Mst. Habib Khatoon and others 1971 S C M R 498 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -- O. XLI, r. 27-Additional evidence-A party, held, not entitled to indulgence to patch up weak points of his evidence under cover of an application under O. XLI, r. 27.-[Evidence]. Haft Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 197: S C 347 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -- O. XLI, r. 27-Additional evidence - No bar on powers of Appellate Court to permit production of additional evidence if such evidence required by Court for pronouncement of .[Evidence]. JUDGMENT The appellants filed a suit against the respondents to pre-empt the sale of land made in their favour by one Ahmad Yar Khan. The sale was evidenced by Mutation No. 31 sanctioned on 27-6-1966. The respondents inter alia resisted the suit on the ground that the land being evacuee property, suit for pre-emption in respect thereof was not maintainable and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. This controversy between the parties gave rise to formulation of Issue No. 1. In this respect the respondents examined Hadayat Ullah, Patwari (D. W. 20), who in cross-examination stated that he received the settlement fee from the vendees in Kharif 1968. The learned Civil Judge decided Issue No. I against the respondents and held that the vendor was the full owner of the property and in view of his decision on other issues in favour of the appellants, he decreed the suit against the respondents on 20-5-1971. They filed an appeal and also moved an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C., before the learned First Appellate Court for production, by way of additional evidence, of a certificate issued by the authorities concerned to the effect that the settlement…
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