2002 PLP 1408 (CLC)
HIDAYAT KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mufti IBRAR AHMAD KHAN
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1408 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, C.J. |
| Parties | HIDAYAT KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mufti IBRAR AHMAD KHAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1408 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1408 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1408 (CLC) (HIDAYAT KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mufti IBRAR AHMAD KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Abdullah Jan for Petitioners
Headnotes / Summary
(a) North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11‑‑‑Suit for pre -emption‑‑‑ Denial of sale‑‑‑Plaint, rejection of‑‑‑Prior to filing of written statement, vendor filed application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. wherein he denied any sale transaction of the suit property‑‑‑Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court dismissed the application concurrently ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Denial of transaction by the vendor had made the sale a, question of dispute and being a question of fact, the same had to be proved by the party on .whom 'lay the burden‑‑‑Material question of fact going to the root of the case could not be taken for granted on mere application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.‑‑‑In order to resolve a question of fact some evidence was required to be adduced by the parties, the provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. could not be brought into play‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by,.the Courts below‑‑ Revision was dismissed in limine. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. VI, R.1 & O. VII, R.11‑‑‑Application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. is not pleading.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, C. J.‑‑‑ Mufti Ibrar Ahmed Khan brought a suit against Hidayat Khan for possession through pr emption of property measuring 5 Kanals. After receiving notice and before filing written statement the defendant Hidayat Khan submitted an application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C., claiming therein that no sale transaction, at all, had taken place and thus the pre‑emptor had no cause of action. On 14‑7‑2001 by the learned trial Court and on 21‑9‑2001 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra, such application was dismissed concurrently and hence this petition.
2. The denial of transaction makes the sale a question of dispute and hence being a question of fact, it shall have to be proved by the party on whom lies the burden. This material question of fact going to the very A root of the case, cannot be taken for granted, on mere application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. the latter merely being an application and not pleading. Let the defendant file a regular written statement wherein he may take any plea with regard to existence or otherwise, of the disputed transaction. Thereafter, the Court will frame issues and the party shouldered with the responsibility concerned, will have to discharge the burden. The matter in view of a substantial question of fact could not be short‑circuited.
3. Even otherwise, when in order to resolve a question of fact some evidence is required to be adduced by the parties, the provisions of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. cannot be brought into play. The orders being perfectly correct, the writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./524/P Petition dismissed.