| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 909 1998 SLD 909 1998 SCMR 2396 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.910 of 1996, decision dated: 2-07-1998. (On appeal from the judgment dated 3-10-1995 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in C.R. No.88 of 1995)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ, AHMAD, JJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No.910 of 1996, decision dated: 2-07-1998. (On appeal from the judgment dated 3-10-1995 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in C.R. No.88 of 1995)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ, AHMAD, JJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD AJAIB and another
VS
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 2 others
Law:
Section:
Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--S.13 (3)---Talb-i-Ishhad in pre-emption suit was made in writing after 2/3 days of knowledge of sale by plaintiffs, although Talb-i-Muwathibat was made immediately on knowledge of sale---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit for not making Talb-i-Ishhad within reasonable time---Appellate Court in appeal found that Talb-i-Ishhad had been made within reasonable time and decreed suit---High Court in revision maintained and decree of Appellate Court--Validity---Provision of S.13 (3), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, postulates that action had to be taken within reasonable time---Period of 2/3 days after making Talb-i-Muwathibat was reasonable time within which Talb-i-Ishhad had been made on behalf of plaintiff---Performance of Talb-i-Ishhad by plaintiff was, thus, sufficient compliance of S.13 (3), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and would satisfy expression therein "as soon thereafter as possible" ---Judgment and decree of High Court being unexceptionable, defendant's appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Mir Sahib Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan 1992 SCMR 1780; Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another 1992 SCMR 1886; Ghulam Jilani and 3 others v. Ghulam Muhammad and 7 others 1991 SCMR 2001; Black's Law Dictionary, p. 146; Birmingham Paper Co. v. Holder, 24 GA. App.630,101 S.e.692 and National Cash Register Co. v. McCann, 140 NYS 916, 920, 80 Misc. 165 ref. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J. ---This appeal by leave of the Court filed by the defendants/appellants has called in question the dismissal by the High Court of a Civil revision whereby the judgment and the decree of the appellate Court were upheld and that of the trial Court non-suiting the plaintiffs/respondents in a pre-emption suit had been set aside and the suit had been decreed. 2. The learned trial Judge found on issue No.6 which covered the plea that the requirements of ' Talabs' as envisaged by Section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act (IX of 1991) (the Act) have not been fulfilled. In this context it had been observed by the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs, according to their own showing, came to know of the sale of the disputed land on 3-6-1991 whereas 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