Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------Ss. 31, 27 & 28---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.96 & 115---Pre-emption suit---Contents of the notice revealed that no notice of sale was affixed in terms of S.31, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Plaintiff claimed to have superior right of pre-emption on the ground that he was co-sharer in Khata, watercourse and passage---Plaint revealed that plaintiff acquired knowledge of sales at 10-00 a.m. on 27-11-1997 and immediately expressed his intention to pre-empt the sales, thereafter he secured copy of Jamabandi from Revenue Patwari but he fell ill and thus could not issue notice of Talb-i-Ishhad immediately but along with two truthful witnesses he issued notice of Talb-i-Ishhad on 2-12-1997 to the defendant who received but failed to reply---Defendant filed written statement and controverted the assertion made in the plaint---Trial Court decreed the suit deciding six issues in favour of plaintiff and one issue in favour of the defendant---Appellate Court reversed the findings of Trial Court---Plaintiff, in revision before the High Court contended that Appellate Court had reversed the finding of the Trial Court without adverting to the reasoning of the Trial Court and without appraisal of evidence on record and therefore, the same was decided by the Appellate Court without judicial application of mind which findings were liable to be set aside in revision by the High Court---Defendants contended that both the Courts below had decided the cases against the defendant on the issue by misreading and non-reading of evidence on record---Defendant further contended that Talbs were not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law and witnesses of the plaintiff were at variance in their statements on all material points qua Talbs, therefore s of both the Courts, while rendering on the issues against defendant were not sustainable in the eye of law---Validity---Held, it was the duty and obligation of the Presiding Officer to decide the controversy between the parties after application of mind but the Appellate Court had decided the case without judicial application of mind which was not in consonance with law---Where…

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