2007 PLP 221 (SCMR)
MUKHTIAR ALI alias MUMTAZ ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 221 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUKHTIAR ALI alias MUMTAZ ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 221 (SCMR)?
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 2007 PLP 221 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 221 (SCMR) (MUKHTIAR ALI alias MUMTAZ ALI and others — Petitioners Versus MUMTAZ AHMED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 13-10-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Civil Revision Nos.725-D and 801-D of 1996).
Ss. 6 & 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Making of Talbs
Trial Court decreed suit, but Appellate Court reversed judgment and decree of the Trial Court and High Court affirmed judgment of Appellate Court
Only ground which found favour with High Court to uphold judgment of Appellate Court was that petitioners had produced only one out of two witnesses of 'Talb-i-Ishhad'
Production of both the witnesses in Court was not a mandatory requirement of law
Petitioner as his own witness and one of the witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad had fully proved performance of Talb-i-Ishhad
Judgment of High Court, in circumstances was not only against the law, but also reflected against material evidence on record
Petitions were converted into appeal and were allowed
Impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to High Court to be decided afresh.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos. 3302 and 3303-L of 2003 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Through these petitions, petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 13-10-2003 vide which a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed petitioners Civil Revisions and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, dated 20-3-1996 vide which while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 26-2-1995 petitioners suit was dismissed.
3. The only ground which found favour with the learned High Court to uphold the judgment of the Appellate Court was that petitioners produced only one out of the two witnesses of "Talb-i-Ishhad".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that production of both the witnesses in Court is not mandatory requirement in law, that petitioner (P.W.1) and one of the witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad namely Sher Muhammad (P.W.2) had fully proved the performance of "Talb-i-Ishhad" and that the judgment of the learned High Court on that score is not only against the law but also reflects the material evidence on record.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has not been able to controvert the submissions made by petitioners learned counsel that production of two marginal witnesses in Court is not a mandatory requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 or under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
6. The contention raised by the petitioners learned counsel has force. However, since the learned High Court has not adverted to the other issues, we are inclined to allow these petitions, convert the same into appeals and while setting aside the impugned judgment we are remanding the cases to the learned High Court to decide the matter afresh. The Civil Revision Nos.725-D of 1996 and 801-D of 1996 shall be deemed to be pending before the said Court and shall be decided as mandated in law. H.B.T./M-50/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Cases remanded.