2008 PLP 1554 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1554 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1554 (CLC)?
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 1554 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1554 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus FAZAL AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioner.
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talbs
Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff
On filing appeal by the defendants, Appellate Court below accepting appeal set aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
Time, date and place where sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiff having not been mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint, suit was liable to be dismissed
Appellate Court below had rightly set aside judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMAD, J.- Petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 1 Kanal, 16 Marlas detail of which is given in para.1 of the plaint claiming superior right of pre-emption. The case of the petitioner is that the moment he came to know of the sale he made a jumping demand and has performed Talb-e-Muwathibat on 5-7-1993 and sent registered notices A.D. attested by the witnesses on 7-7-1993 and as such performed Talb-e-lshhad.
2. The suit was contested by the respondent taking preliminary as well as factual objections.
3. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23-6-1998. The respondent filed appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 22-7-2000. Hence this petition.
4. Petitioner produced P.W.1 Arshad Mahmood Postal Clerk, Muhammad Iqbal Branch Post Master as P.W.2, Muhammad Shafique as P.W.3, Abdul Rauf as P.W.4 and Muhammad Rafique petitioner himself appeared as P.W.5.
5. Respondent produced Bashir Ahmad as D.W.1, and Muhammad Ashraf as D. W.2 in support of his claim.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset while relying on PLD 1997 SC 302 stated that the time, date and place where sale came to the knowledge of the petitioner has to be mentioned in the plaint and in view of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. When confronted with the afore-said authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2004 SCMR 1715, 2004 SCMR 1589 and 2005 SCMR 1201.
8. I am afraid, in view of the latest judgment on the subject authoritatively pronounced by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan the same is to prevail and to be followed.
9. I have gone through the plaint with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, time, date and place has no where been mentioned. In this view of the matter, this petition has no force and is dismissed. H.B.T./M-268/L Petition dismissed.