2020 PLP 873 (SCMR)
AHMAD BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs — Appellant Versus AMEER ALI KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 873 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs — Appellant Versus AMEER ALI KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 873 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 873 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 873 (SCMR) (AHMAD BAKHSH (DECEASED) through LRs — Appellant Versus AMEER ALI KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- M. Waheed Anjum, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 28.10.2013 of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench passed in C.R. No. 195 of 2010)
S. 13
Contradictory statements of witnesses regarding Talbs
Notice was purportedly issued by the plaintiff-pre-emptor without reference to witness 'K', who was produced to prove Talb-i-Ishhad
Said witness deposed that he along with the plaintiff was present in a baithak when witness 'H' disclosed the factum of sale
Witness 'H' when himself examined remained silent, and conspicuously omitted any such encounter with witness 'K'
Both said witnesses were also discrepant on other relevant details regarding the time and manner in which the Talbs were made
Contradictions were such in nature that stance taken by one witness could not be accepted without first excluding the others' and vice versa
High Court had been justified to exclude their statements from consideration
Suit for pre-emption was rightly dismissed
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Ahmed Bukhsh, predecessor-in-interest, pre-empted sale through mutation dated 14.9.1999, asserting his superior right of being a co-sharer in the estate; Ameer Ali, vendee/respondent, contested the suit, decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2000, a finding maintained by the Appellate Court, however, reversed by the High Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2013, for failure to perform Talabs in accordance with law, vires whereof are being impugned through this right appeal.
2. The High Court recapitulated plaintiff's evidence regarding performance of Talabs and found it fraught with contradictions, discrepancies and improvements to arrive at a conclusion that Talabs were not performed in accordance with law.
3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants, we have examined the record. Notice (Ex.PW-5/1), purportedly issued by the plaintiff sans reference to Khalid (PW-5), a witness produced to prove Talab-i-Ishhad; he surfaced for the first time on 14.5.2009 to depose that he along with the plaintiff was present in a Baithak when Hameedullah (PW-3) disclosed the factum of sale; Hameedullah when himself examined remained silent, conspicuously omitted any such encounter with Khalid PW. Witnesses are also discrepant on other relevant details regarding time and manner, the Talabs were made; contradictions are such in nature that stance taken by one witness cannot be accepted without first excluding the others' and vice versa; the High Court has been justified to exclude their statements from consideration and, on our own independent analysis, conclusion being irresistible, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a contra view. Appeal fails. Dismissed. MWA/A-18/SC Appeal dismissed.