2003 PLP 1838 (SCMR)
REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1838 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1838 (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 2003 PLP 1838 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Mian Muhammad Ajmal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1838 (SCMR) (REHMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C. M. Latif Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4-12-2001 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.133 of 2001).
S.15
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114
Suit for pre emption
Vendee as witness had stated that in presence of two other persons, he informed the pre-emptor about intended purchase of suit-land, but he did not examine those two persons
Vendee in his statement did not name witnesses, whom he examined in the Court
Held, such plea raised in written statement and evidence of vendee, if read together and accepted as correct, would not in law constitute estoppel against pre-emptor
Pre-emptor was not estopped from filing suit.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
All the Courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent to pre-empt the sale in dispute made in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the High Court, he pressed only the issue of estoppel and conceded the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below on the other issues.
2. In the written statement, the plea raised by the petitioner was that before the purchase of the land, the respondent-plaintiff was approached by him to inform him (respondent) that earlier he had purchased land in the village though he was not the owner of the estate but the present petitioner did not pre-empt the same and now the petitioner also wanted to purchase the land in the village.
3. In support of issue of estoppel, the petitioner Rehmat Ali appeared himself as D.W.1 and he also examined Sain Rehmat as D.W.2 and Sharm Singh as D.W.3. D.W.1 stated that he went to the Chamber of the respondent-plaintiff in the company of Dr. Safdar and Shaukat Ali and informed him that he wanted to purchase the property. Neither Dr. Safdar nor Shaukat Ali were examined as witnesses. In his statement, he did not state that he was also accompanied by Sain Rehmat and Sharm A Singh. Sain Rehmat when appeared as D.W.2 stated nothing to the effect that the respondent was informed about the purchase of the land by the petitioner whereas Sharm Singh merely stated that the respondent plaintiff was informed before the purchase of the land by the petitioner who felt happy. In his statement, Sharm Singh also mentioned the name of one Lambardar who allegedly accompanied them when they approached respondent No.1 but the said Lambardar was also not examined.
4. The plea raised by the petitioner in the written statement and the evidence of D. W.1, D. W.2 and D. W.3 if read together and even if accepted as correct, the same would not in law constitute estoppel against respondent No. 1, therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that I respondent No. 1 was not estopped from filing the suit.
5. No other ground was urged during the arguments. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./R-49/S Leave refused