1998 PLP 1591 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1591 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1591 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1591 (MLD)?
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: 1998 PLP 1591 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOL BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Revision jurisdiction-- Scope of execution
Statutory requirement of "Talbs" as per terms of S.13, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 having not been fulfilled, suit for pre-emption was dismissed as also plaintiff's appeal against the same-- Validity
High Court could not interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact unless there was material irregularity or illegality affecting decisions of Courts below
Even erroneous decision on facts were not revisable except when the same suffered from material irregularity or illegality
Findings of Courts below being concurrent and no irregularity or illegality therein having been pointed out, no interference was warranted by High Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad 1987 SCMR 1005; Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88 and Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53 rel. Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1997. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-4-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The petitioners/plaintiffs pre-empted the sale made by Mst. Sardaran Bibi vide Mutation No.753, dated 21-6-1993 in favour of Mst. Rasool Bibi, respondent-defendant. As many as nine issues were framed and in view of the findings on Issue No.6 regarding the statutory requirements of Talabs as provided under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs was dismissed and their appeal also filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Courts below had ignored from consideration the notice Exh.P-1 regarding Talabs. there is no proof of record that the said notice was ever sent/despatched to the respondent-defendant. Even no question was put in this regard when the respondent appeared as D.W.1. Moreover, while pointing out material discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws, on the point under consideration the learned trial Court also considered the effect of notice Exh.P-1.
3. It is well settled law that the High Court cannot interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings of facts unless there is any material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below. Even erroneous decisions on facts area not revisable except as mentioned above. Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Abdul Hameed versus Ghulam Muhammad (1987 SCMR 1005). Ha ii Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1988 SC 88) and Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53), held the same view. There are concurrent findings of facts in this case and no material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below has been pointed out. The revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. A.A./M-651/L Petition dismissed.