2000 PLP 1391 (MLD)
SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑‑Appellant Versus Chaudhary SHAUK AHMED ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1391 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑‑Appellant Versus Chaudhary SHAUK AHMED ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1391 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1391 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1391 (MLD) (SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑‑Appellant Versus Chaudhary SHAUK AHMED ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Baig Janjua for Appellant.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑.‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑ Non‑performance of Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" and "Talb‑i‑Ishhad"‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plaintiff though had superior right of pre emption in respect of suit land, being co‑sharer and sister of vendors, but she could not prove making of Talb‑i‑Muwathibat as she had neither disclosed in her plaint the time and place of making said Talb nor she had stated the source of knowledge of sale of the land‑‑‑Evidence on record had proved that pre‑emptor had knowledge even prior to registration of sale‑deed in respect of sale of pre‑empted land but despite that knowledge, pre‑emptor had not made Talb‑i‑Muwathibat‑‑‑Pre‑emptor having failed to make Talb‑i- Muwathibat at the spur of the moment, as required by law, suit was rightly dismissed on that ground especially when pre‑emptor also had failed to make Talb‑i‑Ishhad according to law. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 96‑‑‑Appeal from original decree‑‑‑Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Appellant: Court while deciding appeal, could uphold judgment on a ground and for reasons different from one which prevailed with Court below.