2003 PLP 1716 (SCMR)
NAZAKAT ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM-UD-DIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1716 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAKAT ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM-UD-DIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emotion Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1716 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emotion Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1716 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J., Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1716 (SCMR) (NAZAKAT ALI and 3 others — Petitioners Versus NAEEM-UD-DIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order, dated 6-2-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No. 7 of 2002/BWP).
Ss. 6 & 13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XI, Rr.12 & 14-- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.76(a) & 77
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Pre-emotion suit-- -Application by pre emptor for issuance of direction to vendee to produce original sale-deed, receipt of payment and notice - sent through registered post for establishing Talab-e-Ishhad
Trial Court allowed application with observations that in case of vendee's failure to produce such documents by specified date, pre-emptor would be entitled to produce secondary evidence
High Court dismissed revision petition filed by vendee-- Validity
Direction to produce such documents in all fairness was quite in accordance with law
Trial Court was justified in allowing such application
High Court had with sound and cogent reasons dismissed revision petition
No jurisdictional error or misconstruction of law was found--No question of general public importance was involved-- Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 6-2-2002 passed in Civil Revision No.7 of 2002/BWP.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Naeem-ud-Din plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emotion with regard to shop measuring one Marla situated in Dhaban Bazar, Bahawalnagar, which was transferred in favour of the petitioners/defendants vide sale deed in which Naeem-ud-Din plaintiff/respondent claimed his superior right of pre-emotion qua the defendants on the ground that property is adjacent to his property. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit Naeem-ud-Din submitted an application in the Court with the request for issuance of direction to the petitioners for production of original documents to sell as well as receipt executed on 7-2-2000 as well as original notice dated 21-12-2000, which was sent through registered post for establishing Talb-e-Ishhad. This application was contested and the petitioners filed objections therein.
3. The Civil Judge, after hearing the parties through his order dated 11-12-2001 allowed the application and directed the petitioners to produce the above-mentioned documents in the Court on the next date of hearing, in case of failure the plaintiff/respondent would be entitled to produce secondary evidence.
4. The petitioners assailed the aforesaid order of the Civil Judge through a revision, which was dismissed, in limine, vide impugned order dated 6-2-2002. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the impugned order of the High Court is against law, facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioners were not provided an ample opportunity of hearing; that they have been condemned unheard, which was against the rule of natural justice; that the impugned order is also against the provision of Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely perused the material available on record. The order of the High Court directing the petitioners to produce the documents in question, in all fairness, is quite in accordance with law. The trial Court was justified in allowing the application, and the learned High Court, too, with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the revision petition. We do not find any jurisdictional error or misconstruction of law. Furthermore, question of general public importance, as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not involved in this case.
7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. S.A.K./N-136/S Leave refused