P L D 2005 Peshawar 156 (PLP)
ZAIRSHAD — Petitioner Versus FAZLE AKBAR — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2005 Peshawar 156 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAIRSHAD — Petitioner Versus FAZLE AKBAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (IV of 1987) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2005 Peshawar 156 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (IV of 1987) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2005 Peshawar 156 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2005 Peshawar 156 (PLP) (ZAIRSHAD — Petitioner Versus FAZLE AKBAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Javed for Petitioner.
- M. Fakeem Wali for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.31
Improvements on suit property and market value of property
Suit was decreed by Trial Court, but Appellate Court accepting appeal against judgment of Trial Court, set aside the same--Non-speaking judgment of Appellate Court regarding points concerning improvements and market value of suit property, warranted interference of High Court due to non-recording of some part of evidence and due to non-compliance with provisions of O.XLI, R.31, C.P.C.
High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside impugned judgment and decree of Appellate Court and remanded case to decide afresh in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Zair Shad the present petitioner, had instituted a Suit No.595/1 on 7-12-2001 against Fazal Akbar vendee-defendant for possession through pre-emption of the suit property mentioned in detail in the plaint. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Mardan, vide his judgment and decree dated 20-6-2002. The appeal, after remand by this Court, was again decided and allowed by the learned Additional District Judge IV, Mardan, in Civil Appeal No.7/13 of 2002 decided on 24-3-2004. The petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and approached this Court with the present Civil Revision.
2. The learned counsel for the parties argued the details of the case. On reading para. 11 of the judgment regarding `Talb-e-Ishhad' and the statement of Najibullah (DW1) to the effect that it was correct that notice Talb-e-Ishhad was received by Nasar shopkeeper and was handed over to the defendant by him it was found that the learned Additional District Judge had either not read the said part of the statement or it had slipped his attention. The case to this extent, however, was the case of non-reading of the evidence.
3. In para. 12 of the said judgment, the learned Additional District Judge, Mardan, recorded "I do not deem it proper/necessary to touch the other points of improvements and market value of the disputed property". Para. 6 of the said judgment was "As the submissions made at the bar were mainly confined to the issues of Talbs, market value of the property and its improvements, therefore, the evidence on these points requires, consideration". The judgment, therefore, was not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The guidance regarding explanation of the provisions of the said rule was already provided in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest Department, Peshawar and 2 others v. Zain Khan PLD 1993 Pesh. 131.
4. The non-speaking judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mardan, regarding the points concerning improvements and market value as mentioned above, warrant interference of this Court due to non-reading of some part of the evidence and due to non-compliance with the provisions of Order XLI, rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The circumstances in this case require that the case be remanded to the learned District Judge, Mardan, with the direction to transfer the said case of appeal to an Additional District Judge at Mardan for hearing the arguments of the parties in the light of their evidence and for writing of the judgment in the light of the provisions of the above quoted Rule.
5. I, therefore, accept the present Civil Revision, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge IV, Mardan in Appeal No.7/13 of 2002 decided on 24-3-2004 and remand the case back with the directions as mentioned above. Parties are directed to appear. before the learned District Judge, Mardan, for further orders on 16-5-2005. H.B.T./393/P Case remanded.