2007 PLP 1694 (YLR)
FAIZ AHMAD and 7 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HAIDER and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1694 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | FAIZ AHMAD and 7 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HAIDER and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1694 (YLR)?
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 2007 PLP 1694 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1694 (YLR) (FAIZ AHMAD and 7 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM HAIDER and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption---Making of Talbs---Trial Court dismissed suit on the ground that pre-emptors had failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhad--Trial Court while coming to said conclusion had noted that date appearing on notices of Talb-e-Ishhad was 7-3-1996 while receipts issued by the Post-Office were dated, 20-3-1996---Acknowledgement due receipts were not produced by the pre-emptors which could have clarified any discrepancy in that matter---Appellate Court, however allowed appeal against judgment of the Trial Court---Validity---Contention of counsel for petitioners/vendees, firstly was that Appellate Court had not even discussed the aspects of Talb-e-Ishhad which had prevailed with the Trial Court; secondly, that in view of discrepant dates on the notices of Talb-e-Ishhad and the postal receipts and also on account of failure of pre-emptors to bring on record the acknowledgement receipts, finding of the Trial Court was proper---Counsel for pre-emptors had not been able to controvert said contentions---Notices were not sent by pre-emptors to all eight vendees---Such fact 'alone was sufficient to non-suit pre emptors---Appellate Court below, in circumstances had misread evidence while holding that pre-emptors had successfully proved performance of Talbs---Impugned Appellate judgment and decree being not legally maintainable, were set aside---Decree of the Trial Court stood restored in circumstances.
- Ch. Nisar Ahmad Dhullon for Petitioners.
- M. Mahboob Rasool Awan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 2006.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Ghulam Haider deceased (predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.1 to 9) filed a suit seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption. The suit was resisted by the petitioners-vendees. It was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 11-7-2005 on the ground that the respondent had failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhad. While coming to this conclusion the learned trial Court noted that the date appearing on the notices of Talb-e-Ishhad is 7-3-1996 while the receipt, issued by the post office, was issued on 20-3-1996. Acknowledgement due receipts were not produced by the respondent which could have clarified any discrepancy in this matter.
2. An appeal filed by the respondent has however, been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 28-3-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out, firstly, that the learned Appellate Court has not even discussed the aspects of Talb-e-Ishhad which had prevailed with the learned trial Court. Secondly, it is contended that in view of the discrepant dates on the notices of Talb-e-Ishhad and the postal receipts and also on account of failure of the respondents to bring on record the acknowledgement receipts, the finding of the learned trial Court was proper.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-pre-emptors has not been able to convert the above submissions. There are two receipts (Exhs.P.13 and 14) brought on the record by the respondents. Both receipts are addressed to Muhammad Nazir (petitioner No.8). In all, 8 postal receipts have been exhibited on record. Considering that two of these receipts show Muhammad Nazir as the addressee, it becomes evident that notices were not' sent to all eight vendees. This fact alone is sufficient to non-suit the respondents-pre-emptors. Additionally, it does appear from the two receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) that the same were issued on 20-7-1996.
4. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) were issued much later than the other receipts. The printed serial numbers appearing on the other receipts are 553 in respect of Exh.P.15 and 554 in respect of Exh.P.16. These receipts bear the postmark dated 7-3-1996. The receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14), however, appear at Serial Nos.1355 and 1356 respectively. This circumstance would also show that notices of Talb-e-Ishhad sent under receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) were of a date subsequent to 7-3-1996.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find that the learned 'Appellate Court has misread the evidence while holding that the respondents had successfully proved the performance of Talbs. In this view of the matter, the impugned appellate decree is not legally sustainable. The same is set aside and, as a consequence, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 11-7-2005 stands restored. H.B.T./F-13/L Revision accepted.