2010 PLP 926 (MLD)
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NADAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 926 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NADAR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 926 (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 2010 PLP 926 (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: 2010 PLP 926 (MLD) (BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus NADAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Hafeez for Petitioner.
- Ch. Pervaiz Iqbal Gondal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talbs
Suit had concurrently been dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
No time was mentioned by the plaintiff in his plaint as to when he came to know about sale in question and place was also not specified where he had received information that suit land had been sold
Plea not raised in the pleadings could not be considered
Suit, in circumstances was rightly dismissed concurrently by the two courts below.
Judgment & Decree
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.
Briefly the facts constituting background of this controversy are that Bashir Ahmad petitioner along with Roshan-respondent No.2 filed suit for possession through pre-emption which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Mandi Baha ud Din on 29-9-2001 and appeal filed by the pre-emptors against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Baha ud Din on 7-8-2002. The fact relevant for deciding the fate of this revision petition on a short point is that in para. 4 of their plaint the pre-emptors contended that they gained knowledge of sale on 5-4-1993 who made Talab-e-Mawathibat by expressing their intention to pre-empt the same in that very meeting but time and place were not clarified in the plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pre-emptors were not required to give these details in the plaint. No such condition was mentioned in the pre-emption Act. The petitioner had never waived of his right of Pre-emption. There was no evidence on record to prove that the possession of the suit-land was ever changed before the date mentioned by the petitioner in the plaint. In spite of concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, inference could be caused by this Court in such findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, if found that the findings were against the facts or contrary to law. Reliance was placed on the authorities 1998 CLC 1001, PLD 1972 Peshawar 146, 1987 SCMR 1206, 1994 SCMR 1238, 1988 SCMR 1583, PLD 2003 Lahore 544, 1982 CLC 717 and PLD 1993 Lahore 7.
3. Relying on the authorities reported in PLD 2007 SC 302, 2008 SCMR 404 & 1682, and 2003 YLR 3013 learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned judgments did not suffer from any legal infirmity, hence, this revision was liable to be dismissed.
4. In view of the admitted position that no time was mentioned in the plaint when the petitioner came to know about the sale and place was also not specified where he had received information that suit land had been sold, the suit was not maintainable in the light of case law relied upon by the respondent. Plea not raised in the pleadings cannot be considered, therefore, there is no necessary of looking into the evidence as well. Even otherwise I do not find this necessity because of the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below regarding the question of fact.
5. For the foregoing reasons this petition is held to be without any force, hence, is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./B-30/L Petition dismissed.