2008 PLP 248 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others — Petitioners Versus WALAYAT KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 248 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others — Petitioners Versus WALAYAT KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 248 (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 2008 PLP 248 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 248 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others — Petitioners Versus WALAYAT KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 16-10-2003 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.1317-D of 1998).
Ss. 6 & 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Making of Talbs
Trial Court had found that pre-emptor had failed to complete first Talb within stipulated period
Appellate Court, however, reversed the findings of the Trial Court, but High Court concurring with the findings of the Trial Court non-suited pre-emptor on the ground that he had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat
Pre-emptor could not produce any evidence to prove that he had made Talb-i-Muwathibat in accordance with law
Findings of the High Court, thus, could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner/pre-emptor has been non-suited by the learned Lahore High Court and Appellate Courts judgment was reversed on the ground that he failed to prove "Talb-i-Muwathibat" and "Talb-i-Ishhad". 2. 'Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned High Court has misread and non-read the material evidence with regard to the performance of "Talbs" and that the judgment is not sustainable.
3. While disbelieving the evidence produced by the petitioner with regard to the performance of "Talbs" the High Court concurred with the learned trial Court on Issue No.13 and observed as under:-- "What deciding Issue No.13 the learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff has produced his evidence to prove that he has completed the requirements of Talbs according to law enforced. The learned trial Court while discussing the evidence of P.W.3 Qalb-e-Hussain, P. W.4 Nadar Hussain and Muhammad Sharif, P.W.5, observed that the plaintiff completed the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat on 18-7-1995 but according to the contents of the plaint the disputed sale was completed on 4-4-1995 and the first Talb, was completed on 18-7-1995 while the plaintiff was under obligation to complete first Talb within 15 days of the completion of sale."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not referred to any piece of evidence which could persuade us to interfere with the afore-referred finding of the High Court as also of the trial Court. That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./M-112/SC Leave refused.