2005 PLP 1499 (SCMR)
DODHA — Petitioner Versus AADIT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1499 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | DODHA — Petitioner Versus AADIT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1499 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1499 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1499 (SCMR) (DODHA — Petitioner Versus AADIT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-1-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No.169-D of 1996/BWP).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Right of pre-emption, exercise of
Failure to prove transaction as sale as well as requisite Talb
Concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below
Suit and appeal filed by pre-emptor was dismissed both by Trial Court and Appellate Court
Concurrent judgments were maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Validity Pre-emptor could not substantiate his stance that the disputed transaction was a sale
None of the witnesses appearing from the side of pre-emptor had, brought on record any convincing evidence to prove that it was a sale
Requisite Talb as mandated by S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, had not been complied with
Question of fact after scanning the entire evidence brought on record had been determined by the two Courts below and the determination was maintained by High Court
Pre-emptor failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the judgments warranting interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-1-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dismissed the Civil revision filed by the petitioner and maintained the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad, and the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for possession through pre-emption. We have considered the contentions advanced by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner could not substantiate his stance that the impugned transaction was a sale. None of the witnesses appearing from his side has brought on record any convincing evidence to prove that it was a sale. Apart from this, the requisite Talbs as mandated by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, have not been complied with. A question of fact after scanning the entire evidence brought on record has been determined by the two Courts below and the said determination has been maintained by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./D-8/S Petition dismissed. ***