2008 SCMR 1444 (PLP)
HAMEEDULLAH KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 SCMR 1444 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | HAMEEDULLAH KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 SCMR 1444 (PLP)?
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 SCMR 1444 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal 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: 2008 SCMR 1444 (PLP) (HAMEEDULLAH KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Inayatullah Khan Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 2004.
- 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that Talb-e-Ishhad was not duly performed and the respondents failed to prove the notice that it was duly issued and served upon the petitioners. According to him a photostat copy of notice was brought on record to prove the Talbs but the same was not admissible in law, therefore, an objection was raised during the statement of P.W. Zeenat Khatoon. In support of his contention, he was relied upon the judgment reported as Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafique 2001 SCMR 1651.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 7-5-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No.1613 of 2000).
Ss. 6 & 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Making of Talbs
Suit was dismissed by Trial Court on ground that respondent had failed to prove Talbs
Appellate Court below and then High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, concurrently set aside judgment of Trial Court
Contention of petitioners was that Talb-e-Ishhad was not duly performed by respondent and she had failed to prove notice in that respect and that photostat copy of notice brought on record was not admissible in law
Respondent had tendered copy of notice which was in her possession after sending original to petitioners
Court was legally right to accept photostat copy and on that score, no point was made out for grant of leave to appeal
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave declined. Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafique 2001 SCMR 1651 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7th May, 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of property details whereof have been mentioned in the plaint. Suit was contested by the petitioners. However, learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides and having gone through the evidence, led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, dismissed the suit judgment dated 10th March, 1997 on the ground that respondents-pre-emptors have failed to prove Talbs. Learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, set aside the judgment of the Civil Court by means of judgment, dated 3rd June, 2000. On appeal, the judgment of the Appellate Court has been maintained by the learned High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction vide impugned judgment dated 7th May, 2002. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that Talb-e-Ishhad was not duly performed and the respondents failed to prove the notice that it was duly issued and served upon the petitioners. According to him a photostat copy of notice was brought on record to prove the Talbs but the same was not admissible in law, therefore, an objection was raised during the statement of P.W. Zeenat Khatoon. In support of his contention, he was relied upon the judgment reported as Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafique 2001 SCMR 1651.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the case-law being relied upon by the learned counsel. It is to be noted that as far as P.W. 1 Zeenat Khatoon is concerned, she has tendered copy of notice which was in her possession, after sending the original to the petitioners, therefore, in our opinion, the Court was legally right to accept its photostat copy and on this score, no point is made out for grant of leave to appeal. The judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable, in view of the facts and circumstances of instant case.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined. Leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./H-27/SC Petition dismissed.