2006 PLP 1505 (SCMR)
NIAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1505 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | NIAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1505 (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 2006 PLP 1505 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1505 (SCMR) (NIAZ ALI — Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 2005.
- 4. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not point out any illegality in the said concurrent findings of the two learned appellate Courts.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 29-9-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in R.S.A. No.10 of 1988).
Ss. 6 & 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for. pre-emption
Trial Court decreed the suit, but Appellate Court set aside judgment and decree of Trial Court and dismissed suit on the ground that petitioner had not been able to establish that he was son of vendor and said finding of Appellate Court was upheld by High Court
High Court considered effect of testimony of witnesses produced by petitioner and effect of non-production of pedigree-table of petitioner at the trial and had come to the conclusion that no exception could be taken to the findings of First Appellate Court on said question which findings were consequently affirmed by High Court
Petitioner having failed to point out any illegality in concurrent findings of Appellate Court below and High Court; petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court, was dismissed and leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Layyah to pre-empt the sale of land made by Muhammad Bakhsh, his mother Mst. Jannat and his sister Mst. Amiran Mai to the respondents on the ground that he was a son of the said Mst. Amiran Mai vendor. The learned trial Court decreed the said suit but the learned first appellate Court set aside the said decree and judgment and dismissed the suit on the ground that Niaz petitioner had not been able to establish that he was a son of the said Mst. Amiran Mai vendor. The second appeal bearing R.S.A. No.10 of 1988 filed by Niaz petitioner was dismissed confirming the findings of the first Appellate Court.
2. Hence this petition.
3. It is admitted on record that the father of Niaz petitioner, namely, Bagh Ali had two wives and it had been found by the two learned appellate Courts that Niaz petitioner could not prove that he was the son of Bagh Ali through Mst. Amiran Mai vendor. The learned Judge in Chamber had once again examined the entire evidence and had found that the father of the petitioner, namely, Bagh Ali who had appeared at the, trial as P.W.3 in his capacity as the next friend of Niaz Ali who was then a minor had never stated that Niaz petitioner was his son from Met. Amiran Mai. It had also been noticed by the learned High Court that the said Bagh Ali never appeared in the affirmative evidence to establish the superior pre-emptory right of the petitioner and had appeared at the trial only in rebuttal. The learned Judge had also considered the effect of the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the effect of non-production of pedigree-table of the petitioner at the trial and had come to the conclusion that no exception could be taken to the findings of the learned first appellate Court on the said question which findings were consequently affirmed by the Honourable High Court.
4. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length who could not point out any illegality in the said concurrent findings of the two learned appellate Courts.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./N-58/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.