SCMR 2008

2008 PLP 37 (SCMR)

Mst. RASOOLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus KHIZAR HAYAT — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 1575-L of 2004, decided on 9th March, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 37 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ
Parties Mst. RASOOLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus KHIZAR HAYAT — Respondent
Primary Law Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 37 (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 2008 PLP 37 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 37 (SCMR) (Mst. RASOOLAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus KHIZAR HAYAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)

Representation

  • Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order, dated 19-4-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No.1061 of 2004).

Ss. 6 & 13

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Suit for pre-emption

Failure to make Talbs --Petitioner's suit for pre-emption had been dismissed by the court of appeal and also by the High Court on the ground that evidence led to prove Talbs, being discrepant, was not worthy of credit--Plaint did not disclose the date, time and' witnesses before whom Talb-i-Muwathibat was made

With that deficiency in the plaint, it was imperative for the petitioner to lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove performance of Talbs

Evidence led in that behalf was discrepant and not worthy of credit

Supreme Court seized of petition under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, would not reappraise the evidence--Concurrent judgment being unexceptionable, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCMR 329 ref.

Judgment & Decree

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

Petitioner's suit for pre-emption has been dismissed by the two Courts below i.e. learned Court of appeal and also by High Court on the ground that the evidence led to prove Talbs, was discrepant and, therefore, not worthy of credit.

2. Petitioner's learned counsel impugns the judgments and decrees on the ground that both the Courts have failed to take note of the law declared by this Court in Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCMR 329 and has disbelieved evidence for the reasons not sustainable in law.

3. We have considered the submissions made and gone through the impugned judgment as also the judgment of this Court which is being relied upon by petitioner's learned counsel.

4. In the afore referred judgment of this Court, the ratio laid down was that the plaintiff in 'a suit for pre-emption cannot be non-suited merely for lacunas in the plaint qua the performance of Talbs. The Court must examine the evidence led by him to prove Talbs. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaint does not disclose the date, time and the witnesses before whom Talb-i-Muwathibat was made. With this deficiency in the plaint, it was imperative for the plaintiff to lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove performance of Talbs. A bare reading of the evidence led in this behalf indicates that the same was discrepant and not worthy of credit. The Court seized of a petition under Article 185, would not reappraise the evidence.

5. In the afore referred circumstances, we find the concurrent judgments to be unexceptionable. This petition lacking in merits is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./R-2/SC Petition dismissed.