Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 6,13

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 95,164

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----Ss.6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption--Making of Talbs---Suit was concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court mainly on the ground that Talb-i-Muwathibat was not duly performed by the plaintiffs---Question of performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat was discussed in length by both the courts below and concurrently concluded that the requirements for performance of Talb had not been fulfilled---Admittedly said demand was not made in "Majlis "---Law embodied physical presence of informant and two witnesses together and said important ingredient was missing in the case as the plaintiffs were informed through telephone and they received information but not in presence of two truthful witnesses---Talb-i-Muwathi bat, in circumstances having not been duly performed, concurrent findings of two courts below in that regard were unexceptionable---In absence of any mis reading, non-reading of evidence or material illegality, concurrent findings of two courts below could not be interfered by High Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was possessed of power to call for record of any case which had been decided by a court subordinate to it; and if it appeared that the subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; and had acted with material irregularity, High Court was empowered to rectify and correct any error of law, fact or jurisdiction without requiring other party to file cross-objection. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.95---Power-of-attorney, execution and effectiveness of---Major discrepancies existed in execution of General Power-of-Attorney which executed in United Kingdom without observing the legal or codal formalities of Municipal Law practised there---Said power of attorney had not been endorsed properly nor was signed by the court or Vice Counsel as required under Art.95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such power of attorney was legally ineffective. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.- The respondents purchased…

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