2002 PLP 1897 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1897 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1897 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1897 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1897 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Hakim Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Ozair Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 39 & 52‑‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act ~I of 1913), S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (19.73), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Pedigree‑table, proof of relationship‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether mere tenders of pedigree‑table without further proof of relationship of plaintiff with vendor could be read as evidence of proof of relationship.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 39 & 52‑‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act ~I of 1913), S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (19.73), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Pedigree‑table, proof of relationship‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether mere tenders of pedigree‑table without further proof of relationship of plaintiff with vendor could be read as evidence of proof of relationship. Sh. Hakim Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Ozair Chughtai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑By this common judgment, we propose to decide C.P.L.A. Nos.3113=3114‑L of 2001 as a question of law and facts are identical in both of them.
2. The petitioner when appeared as D.W.8 specifically stated that the, respondent‑plaintiff was not TAYA ZAD of the vendor but he was not cross -examined on this point, on the other hand when the respondent‑plaintiff appeared as his own witness as P.W.2 at the stage of rebuttal stated that he was Taya Zad of the vendor but he also was not cross‑examined on that point. The respondent‑plaintiff in his statement did not even refer to pedigree‑table which he had already tendered in evidence as Exh.P.1. Leave has already been granted in the case of Mehr Hussain v. Bahadar Ali in C.P. No.1256 of 2001 to consider whether mere tender of pedigree‑table without further proof of the relationship of the plaintiff with the vendor could be read as evidence of proof of relationship. Leave is granted in this case also on the said point. Till the disposal of this appeal execution proceedings shall remain stayed. Q.M.H.//M.A.K./M‑410/S Leave granted.