2017 PLP 56 (CLCN)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 56 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 56 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 56 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 56 (CLCN) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD WARIS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Ikram Khatana for Petitioners.
- Fakhar ul Zaman Akhtar Tarar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Talbs
Acknowledgment due, requirement as to
Pre-emptors as witness, appearance of
Plaintiffs filed suit for possession through pre-emption seeking to pre-empt sale made in favour of defendant(vendee) claiming to have made the required demands/Talbs
Defendant denied the claim on plea that Talbs had not been made in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Trial court decreed the suit, but appellate court reversed the same holding that plaintiffs had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat as one of pre-emptors had not appeared as witness to depose about performance of Talbs
Contention by plaintiffs was that appellate court had misconstrued evidence and misapplied the law
Plea taken by defendant was that making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was a personal act and all pre-emptors had to appear as witness to depose about the Talbs for their suit to succeed
Defendant denied receipt of Talb-i-Ishhad
Pre-emptor had to prove making of Talb-i-Muwathibat otherwise suit would be dismissed
Making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was condition precedent to fulfil Talb-i-Ishhad and it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to examine postman to prove that he had delivered envelope containing notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to defendant
Plaintiffs examined postman who deposed that his son had delivered the envelope to defendant, but the son was not called as witness which was fatal to the case of plaintiffs
Postman could not delegate his authority to his son
Plaintiffs' witness admitted that postal envelope was not accompanied by any acknowledgment due
Plaintiffs failed to prove delivery of postal envelope in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
High Court dismissed petition for being without merit. [Paras. 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment]
Contradictory judgments of subordinate courts
When judgments of courts below are at variance, judgment of appellate court is to be preferred to that of Trial Court, especially when it is a well-reasoned judgment and takes into consideration all aspects of case. [Para. 15 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)
S. 13
Talbs
Acknowledgment due, requirement as to
Pre-emptors as witness, appearance of
Plaintiffs filed suit for possession through pre-emption seeking to pre-empt sale made in favour of defendant(vendee) claiming to have made the required demands/Talbs
Defendant denied the claim on plea that Talbs had not been made in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
Trial court decreed the suit, but appellate court reversed the same holding that plaintiffs had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat as one of pre-emptors had not appeared as witness to depose about performance of Talbs
Contention by plaintiffs was that appellate court had misconstrued evidence and misapplied the law
Plea taken by defendant was that making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was a personal act and all pre-emptors had to appear as witness to depose about the Talbs for their suit to succeed
Defendant denied receipt of Talb-i-Ishhad
Pre-emptor had to prove making of Talb-i-Muwathibat otherwise suit would be dismissed
Making of Talb-i-Muwathibat was condition precedent to fulfil Talb-i-Ishhad and it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to examine postman to prove that he had delivered envelope containing notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to defendant
Plaintiffs examined postman who deposed that his son had delivered the envelope to defendant, but the son was not called as witness which was fatal to the case of plaintiffs
Postman could not delegate his authority to his son
Plaintiffs' witness admitted that postal envelope was not accompanied by any acknowledgment due
Plaintiffs failed to prove delivery of postal envelope in terms of S. 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
High Court dismissed petition for being without merit. [Paras. 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment] Muhammad Ali and others v. Abdul Hafeez and others 2005 MLD 226; Mst. Razia Bibi and others v. Iftikhar Ahmad and others 2004 MLD 1719; Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah 2007 SCMR 1105; Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others v. Muhammad Anar 2013 SCMR 866 and Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Rasool 2011 SCMR 762 rel. (b) Administration of justice
Contradictory judgments of subordinate courts
When judgments of courts below are at variance, judgment of appellate court is to be preferred to that of Trial Court, especially when it is a well-reasoned judgment and takes into consideration all aspects of case. [Para. 15 of the judgment] Khalid Ikram Khatana for Petitioners. Fakhar ul Zaman Akhtar Tarar for Respondent.