2006 PLP 2992 (YLR)
QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2992 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2992 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2992 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2992 (YLR) (QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus MUNIR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----Ss. 6, 13 & 35(2)---Suit for pre-emption---Making of Talbs---Trial Court dismissed suit for pre-emption against petitioner on the ground that neither there was any plea nor evidence led regarding performance of Talbs---Respondent filed appeal against judgment of the Trial Court and during pendency of appeal, a person appeared and stated that he was the special attorney of petitioner who was living abroad; that he had entered into a compromise agreement with respondent and in accordance with said agreement, let a decree be passed in favour of respondent in respect of two Kanals of land for consideration---Respondent having agreed, Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed. suit---Counsel for petitioner had contended that alleged attorney of petitioner had no authority to enter into said agreement and according to terms of power-of-attorney, said attorney of the petitioner had no authority to enter into a compromise as he was given only authority to pursue the matter in the court of first instance as well as in the court of appeal, impugned judgment and decree thus were not maintainable, in circumstances---Validity---Even otherwise, no attempt had been made to prove a valid Talb-i-Ishhad in presence of two truthful witnesses in accordance with S.35(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, impugned judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, was set aside.
- Khan A. Hameed for Petitioner.
- Rao Munawar Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
The petitioner purchased the suit-land vide Mutation No.1109 attested on 10-11-1988. On 29-104989 the respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. He claimed to be a co-sharer in the suit-land and also f land adjacent thereto. I find that there is not a word in the entire plaint which was filed long after 31-7-1986 as to performance of Talbs. The suit was contested by-the petitioner. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 16-5-1994 on the ground that there is neither any plea nor evidence regarding performance of Talbs. The respondent filed a first appeal. This appeal came up before a learned ADJ, Wazirabad. On 30-1-1996 one Muhammad Arshad put in appearance and stated that he is the special attorney of the petitioner who is abroad; that he has entered into a compromise agreement with the respondent and in accordance with the said agreement let a decree be passed in favour of the respondent in respect of two Kanals of land for Rs.12,
500. The respondent agreed. Vide judgment and decree dated 1-2-1996 the learned ADJ allowed the appeal partly and decreed the suit to the extent of two Kanals of land on payment of Rs.12,500.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said attorney had no authority to enter into the said compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent says that a reading of the said document according to his view does go to show that the said attorney was duly authorized to enter into the compromise.
3. I have examined the copy of the power of attorney, admittedly, executed by the petitioner in favour of the said Muhammad Arshad which is Exh.D.1. In view of the respective contentions of the parties, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant contents of the said document which are rather brief:-- Urdu Para Page 2994
4. To my mind a bare reading of the said document, in the light of the settled legal position that a power of attorney is to be strictly construed, does go to show that Muhammad Arshad had no authority to enter into a compromise and he was given only the authority to pursue the matter in the Court of first instance as well as in the Court of appeal. The last line of the said document reproduced above is to be read in the same context and can by no means be construed to enlarge the scope of the said power of attorney. The impugned judgment and decree are, therefore, not sustainable. I would have remanded this case for hearing of the appeal but I find that there is no mention that Talbs were made in the manner prescribed. The statement of Munir Ahmad respondent was recorded on 13-6-1992 i.e. long after the promulgation of the several Pre-emption Ordinances and then the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. No attempt was made to prove a valid Talb-i-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses in accordance with section 35(2) of the said Act of 1991. A remand will not serve any purpose. The civil revision accordingly is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-2-1996 of learned ADJ, Wazirabad, is set aside. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./Q-38/L Revision allowed.