1998 PLP 1829 (CLC)
Mian HAMID‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1829 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | Mian HAMID‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1829 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1829 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1829 (CLC) (Mian HAMID‑UD‑DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Younas Shah for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Latif for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Talb‑e‑Muwathibat‑‑--‑Plaintiff/pre‑emptor had failed to mention in his plaint the place, date, time and the manner in which he had made "Talb‑e‑Muwathibat"‑‑‑Pre‑emptor had also failed to mention same in his statement when he was examined as his own witness in the Trial Court‑‑ Courts below, in circumstances, had rightly dismissed pre‑emptor's suit for pre emption for non‑mentioning necessary details in plaint regarding time, place and date on which "Talb‑e‑Muwathibat" was actually made by him. Shah Hussain and others v. Khani Zaman PLD 1996 Pesh. 73; Amir Jan and others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1997 SC 883 and PLD 1998 SC 121 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Younas Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1998. Mian Muhammad Younis Shah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Latif Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.
2. It was held by his Lordship Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan of this Court in case titled Shah Hussain etc. v. Khani Zaman (PLD 1996 Peshawar 73) that performance of necessary Talbs had to be specifically mentioned in the body of the plaint.
3. However, when the said verdict was challenged before the Supreme Court in an appeal (Amir Jan and others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad) PLD 1997 Supreme Court 883, it was held by their Lordship Mr. Justice Fazal Ilahi Khan and his Lordship Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, that it was not al all necessary to mention the time, place and the date regarding the "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" in the body of the plaint and that it would be enough if it was mentioned in the plaint that "Talb", as required under the law, was in fact made. It was further held by the Supreme Court that the factum of making "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" could be established by the plaintiff by producing evidence, oral or documentary, at the time of the trial.
4. In a recent case, Khani Zaman v. Shah Hussain and others, another Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of His Lordship Mr. Justice Munwar Ahmad Mirza and his Lordship Mr. Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, vide its order, dated 9‑1‑1998 (PLD 1998 Supreme Court 121) has held that it was necessary to mention the details in the plaint regarding time, place and the date on which "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" was actually made as the same was necessary for calculating the period of limitation for "Talb‑i‑Ishhad".
5. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly so that in this case the petitioner has failed to mention the place, date, time and the manner in which he had made "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" in the plaint. Similarly he has failed to mention the same in his statement when he was examined as his own witness in the Trial Court.
6. Accordingly by following the dictum laid down by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, I have no option but to hold that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the lower forums in dismissing the petitioner's suit/appeal. This revision petition is, therefore, without any substance is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./87/P Revision dismissed.