Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 759 2007 SLD 759 2007 CLC 58
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.872-D of 1998, heard on 27-05-2004
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD HASSAN and 2 otherss

VS

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and another

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------Ss. 6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption---Making of Talbs---Suit filed by pre-emptor was concurrently decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court---Contradiction in testimony of pre-emptor with regard to source of information of sale in question, which was most relevant, had not been duly taken note of by both the Courts---Testimony of pre-emptor as his own witness in relation to Talb-i-Muwathibat, was not at all credible---No other evidence was available to prove requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat as set out in S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Both Courts below having committed illegality and material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction, impugned concurrent s, were set aside---Suit filed by pre-emptor, was dismissed, in circumstances. Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Petitioners. Ch. Inayat Ullah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th May, 2004. JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioners are the L. Rs, of Muhammad Saleem, who was the original defendant before the learned trial Court. The petitioners impugn the concurrent decrees dated 15-6-1993 passed by the learned trial Court and 1-4-1998 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby a suit filed by Muhammad Rafique (respondent/plaintiff) seeking possession through pre-emption has been decreed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments to Issue No.8-A relating to Talbs, which was framed in the following terms:-- "Whether the plaintiff has made Talbs under the law? Opp" 3. I have gone through the evidence of the parties, with the assistance of both learned counsel. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff had averred that he had come to know of the disputed sale through reliable sources. There was no mention, at all, of the source of his information. When the respondent/plaintiff appeared as his own witness (P.W.3), he deposed, firstly, that he had been informed of the sale by his friend Rana Abdul Aleem. Thereafter, he changed his stance and stated that information of the sale was given to him by Mistri Muhammad Hussain, who is his employee and works at…
🔒
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