| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 352 1992 SLD 352 1992 PLD 180 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No393 of 1988, decision dated: 14-01-1992.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE ARID WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
M. Aftab Iqbal Chahduree, Advocate instructed by M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. N.D. Mahmood, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record.
Civil Appeal No393 of 1988, decision dated: 14-01-1992.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE ARID WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
M. Aftab Iqbal Chahduree, Advocate instructed by M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. N.D. Mahmood, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record.
Ch. ABDUL RASHID
VS
Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)-----S. 8(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to the unsuccessful vendee in a pre-emption suit to examine whether in taking the custom of pre-emption to be proved as in existence at the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 the Courts could rely solely, on a notification of the Government under S.8(2) of the Act excluding a particular area at the time from the application of the Act. (b) Punjab Pre=emption Act (I of 1913)-- ----Ss. 8(2) & 7---Exercise of power under S.8(2) of the Act was not a proof of the existence of pre-emption right in the area as it shows the exercise of the right of exempting in an area the exercise of the right of pre-emption not of its existence---Such notification, even if it were so it would be irrelevant for the purposes of S.7, wherein the requirement of time was "at the commencement of the Pre-emption Act". (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VI, R. 17---Application' for amendment of written statement---Factual issues which the appellant wanted to raise by getting the written statement amended had nevertheless been decided by the Courts without framing any issue; without inviting evidence and without going to the material facts of the case---If at all, a decision had to be given on the controverted questions of fact, then the evidence should have been invited and considered as these were not legal issues and they had to be proved or disproved in accordance with law--Mere fact that the appellant had moved 12 years after the institution of the suit for amendment was in itself no ground for rejecting the amendment particularly so, when the occasion for raising such a plea had arisen when the preliminary framed issue on the subject was struck off and the other issue did already arise from the pleadings of the parties---Great prejudice thus had been caused by refusing the amendment by not framing an issue on the controverted question of fact. (d) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)- ----S. 8(2)---Cvil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17---Application for amendment of written statement---Great prejudice, held, had been caused by…
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