1979 PLP 401 (SCMR)
ATAUL HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Master GHULAM RASOOL‑Respondent
| Citation | 1979 PLP 401 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATAUL HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Master GHULAM RASOOL‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 401 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 401 (SCMR)?
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: 1979 PLP 401 (SCMR) (ATAUL HAQ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus Master GHULAM RASOOL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 20th February, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 2‑3‑1977 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in R. S. A. No. 607 of 1976).
S. 19‑Statutory notice‑Copies of notices produced by petitioner (vendee) not duly proved and testimony of witnesses in such regard wholly inconclusive and unreliable‑No .statutory notice as required by S. 19, held, at all served on plaintiff‑pre‑emptor.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑‑This is a .petition for special leave from the judgment and decree dated 2nd of March 1977, whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed in limine a regular second appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent. It is barred by eight days and in view of the circumstances explained in the application under Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956 we hereby condone the delay and proceed to its disposal on the merits. . On the 14th of September 1970 Mst. Sughra Begum sold the land in dispute to the petitioner for Rs. 6,
000. The respondent successfully pre‑empted the sale and the decree thus passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the District Judge on first appeal and upheld by the High Court in second appeal. The only objection raised before us in this petition against the judgment is that all the three Courts have failed to dispose of issue No. 4 framed in the suit: This issue is as under;
"Whether any legal notice was served on the plaintiff, if so, its effect ? The grievance of the petitioner is that the two lower Courts had acted illegally in their failure to dispose of this issue at all. However, the learned Judge in Chambers had sent for record and on going through it he found that no evidence was led by the petitioner on the point. Before the High Court the learned counsel relied on copies of three notices and one postal certificate. . But in the opinion of the High Court, these documents were produced at a very late stage and the learned trial Court did not allow them to be proved for this reason. This order passed by the trial Court was unexceptionable. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that this view formed by the learned Judge in Chambers was fully justified. The copies of the notices produced by the petitioner were not duly proved in the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses in that connection was whole inconclusive and could not be relied upon. Admittedly no statutory notice as required by section 19 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act was at all served on the plaintiff‑pre‑emptor. This petition has therefore, no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.