2006 PLP 637 (MLD)
NAZIR AHMAD — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 637 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 637 (MLD)?
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 2006 PLP 637 (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: 2006 PLP 637 (MLD) (NAZIR AHMAD — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talbs
Plaintiff/pre emptor had himself admitted that he was informed of sale in question, but he did not make any pronouncement on date of information that he would pre-empt sale
Plaintiff, instead deposed that he gathered his witnesses and went away to city
Courts below, in circumstances were fully justified in holding that requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat had not been fulfilled by plaintiff
Plaintiff who himself was a Patwari and was fully aware of requirements of S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, had to make an overt expression immediately upon being informed of sale, but he failed to do so-:--Impugned concurrent decrees of Courts below being unexceptionable, appeal against said decrees was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit to pre-empt a sale made in favour of the respondents/vendees. The suit was resisted on the ground that the appellant had failed to fulfil the requirement of Talbs.
2. Both Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to make Talb-i-Muwathibat. I have gone through the testimony of the appellant/plaintiff who appeared as P.W.I. He admitted that he was informed of the sale on 2-1-1994 but, according to his examination-in-chief, he did not make any pronouncement that he would pre-empt the sale. Instead he deposed that he gathered his witnesses and went to Mandi Bahauddin. In these circumstances, the learned Courts below were fully justified in holding that the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat had not been fulfilled by the appellant/plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant by conduct can be deemed to have pronounced his right to pre-empt the sale. This cannot be accepted because the appellant had to make an overt expression immediately upon being informed of the sale. Furthermore, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant himself was a Patwari and was fully aware of the requirements of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. Both the Courts below thus have passed their judgments and decrees on the evidence on record including the testimony of the appellant-plaintiff as P.W.1. The impugned decrees are, therefore, unexceptionable. This appeal as a consequence is dismissed. H.B.T./N-77/L Appeal dismissed.