1994 PLP 807 (MLD)
SHAHAMAT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 807 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAHAMAT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 807 (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 1994 PLP 807 (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: 1994 PLP 807 (MLD) (SHAHAMAT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Chohan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muzammal Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Talab-e-Ishhad
Proof-- Revisional jurisdiction
Exercise of
Two Courts below had concurrently found that pre-emptor/petitioner had failed to prove Talab-e-Ishhad-- petitioner having failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of Courts below in respect of their findings qua Talab-e-Ishhad, concurrent. findings of fact reached by them could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition arises out of a suit for possession through pre -emption filed by the petitioner on 8-3-1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chunian in respect of the land measuring 147 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Talwandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 11-5-1992. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 30-7-1992.
2. I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at considerable length. The two Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner had failed to prove Talab-e-Ishhad. The petitioner's learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the Courts below in respect of their findings qua Talab-e-Ishhad. I have also gone through the petitioner's evidence with the help of the petitioner's learned counsel. While appearing as P.VJ.1. Shahamat petitioner stated that on coming to know about-the sale of the disputed land he went to the respondents after 2/3 days alongwith 4/5 persons including Jabar Khan P.W.2, Samun Khan P.W.3, Ali Muhammad P.W,4 and Haji Ajab Khan etc. He claimed that all of them had gone to Pernawan at the house of Siddique father of respondents Nos.1 and
2. He further claimed that the respondents had refused to accept the demand made by him. However, he was contradicted by his own witness Jabar Khan P.W.2 who clearly stated that when he alongwith others went to the house of Aslam respondent No.2 he found his father Siddique in the house. He further stated that both the respondents were not in the house and that the petitioner had offered to the respondent's father to get the sale-price and transfer the suit land in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that he had made the offer to the respondents is belied by his own witness. For the same reason, the claim of Samun Khan P.W.3 and Ali Muhammad P.W,4 that they as well as the petitioner had met the respondents in the house cannot be accepted. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-396/L Petition dismissed.