2006 PLP 612 (MLD)
Subedar SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 612 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Subedar SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 612 (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 612 (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 612 (MLD) (Subedar SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner.
- Malik Khizar Hayat Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talbs
Trial Court had found that plaintiff had failed to prove requirements of statutory `Talbs' and had also failed to establish his superior right of pre emption
Findings of Trial Court on both said issues were reversed by appellate Court
Case set up by plaintiff in his plaint was that he received information of sale in question on 25-6-1996 and that he made Talb-e-Muwathibat on same date
Witness to Talb-e-Ishhad and plaintiff as his own witness had stated that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was made and signed on date of filing suit which was 14-7-1996
Notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, in circumstances was beyond the period of 14 days as prescribed by Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Appellate court had observed that statements of witnesses produced by plaintiff were ambiguous
Despite recording said observation, appellate Court had proceeded to surmise that witnesses apparently got confused
No basis was available for such conjecture because statements of witnesses were also in conflict with earlier part of testimony of one of witnesses and plaintiff
Considering testimony of witnesses, there was no occasion to disregard such testimony and to rely on testimony of postal staff--Provisions of S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 which required witnesses of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad to be truthful, had also not been met by witnesses produced by plaintiff
Plaintiff having failed to fulfil requirements of law relating to Talb-e-Ishhad, appellate decree, legally was not sustainable
Same was set aside and decree of Trial Court stood restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner/defendant impugns the appellant decree dated 19-1-2002 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 25-1-2001 was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption was decreed.
2. The learned trial Court had held that the respondent had failed to prove the requirements of statutory talbs and had also failed to establish his superior right of pre-emption. On both these issues the findings of the learned trial Court were reversed by the learned Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the testimony of the respondent's witnesses. The case set up by the respondent in his plaint was that he received information of the sale in question on 25-6-1996 and made Talb-e-Muwathibat on the same date. The witness to the Talb-e-Ishhad namely, Aurangzeb (P.W.5) and the plaintiff as his own witness have stated that the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was made and signed on the date of the filing of the suit. The suit having been filed on 14-7-1996 it would be clear that the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was beyond the period of 14 days prescribed in the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. The learned Appellate Court has noted that the statements of the witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff are ambiguous. Despite recording this observation it has proceeded to surmise that the witnesses apparently got confused. There is no basis for this conjecture because the statements noted above were quite unambiguous. The same were also in conflict with the earlier part of the testimony of P.W.5 and the respondent/plaintiff. Considering the testimony of the witnesses there was no occasion to disregard such testimony and to rely on the testimony of the postal staff.
5. At this juncture it is useful to note the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act which require the witnesses of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, to be truthful. The qualification obviously has also not been met by the witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the. respondent/plaintiff failed to fulfil the requirements of law relating to Talb-e-Ishhad. The appellant decree is, therefore, not legally sustainable. The same is set aside and, as a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 25-1-2001 stand restored. H.B.T./S-437/L Revision allowed.