Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3188 2007 SLD 3188 2007 PLJ 75
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 1 of 2005, decided on 5.3.2007
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J
Malik Muhammad Asif, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Naeem Anwar, Advocate for
Respondents

MANZOOR HUSSAIN

VS

IFTIKHAR AHMED and another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 70--Oral evidence--Major contradictions--Statements of the witnesses were recorded after lapse of 8 years but such contradictions could not be termed as minor contradictions--Major contradictions proved that the witnesses of Talb-i-Muwathibat were not truthful and they were avoiding to make correct statement about the persons who were present at the time of Talb-i-Muwathibat. [P. 78] A Administration of Justice-- ----Witness--Liability--A party producing a witness is bound by their statement. [P. 78] B Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Arts. 70 & 71--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Oral evidence--Proved--Right of pre-emption--Competent jurisdiction--Concurrent findings--Arts. 70 and 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order are clear about mode of proof through oral evidence--Proof of talb-i-muwathibat is not merely a technicality but right of pre-emption is not activated under Talb-i-Muwathibat is performed in accordance with Law--Held: Courts below had properly appreciation of evidence and applied the law applicable to the present case--High Court had not been able to find out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or illegality or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect in concurrent findings of the Courts of competent jurisdiction. Judgment The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla comprising Khasra No. 1633 situated at village Kotkay, District Mansehra against the respondents/defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mansehra. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.6.2003. 2. Being not satisfied with the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge which was entrusted to learned Addl: District Judge-III, Mansehra who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal vide judgment/decree dated 27.9.2004. 3. Being not contented with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below the petitioner has filed the revision…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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