2013 PLP 145 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 145 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Shahid Saeed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 145 (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 2013 PLP 145 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Shahid Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 145 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naveed Shabbir Goraya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Making of Talbs
Discrepancies in exami-nation-in-chief and cross-examination
Pre-emptor during his cross-examination admitted that he came to know about the transaction by an informer and at the same time he announced his superior right of pre-emption qua the respondents over the property in dispute
Pre-emptor in examination-in-chief did not mention that he at once exercised his right of pre-emption nor did he disclose that he announced his right of pre-emption in presence of the informer
Pre-emptor only produced single witness of talb-e-Muwathibat, who was also the informer of the sale; he had also not proved talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with law since in his statement he admitted that he could not mention exactly whether the notices of talb-e-Ishhad exhibited in court were the same notices which were sent to the respondents
Clerk who had written the notice of talb-e-Ishhad was not produced as witness in the case
Pre-emptor had not successfully proved the talbs in accordance with law
Courts below were concurrent in their findings of fact and had taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case in their judgments and decrees
No interference in revisional jurisdiction was called for
Revision petition was dis-missed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.
The instant civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below by way of which suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-2010. Petitioner preferred an appeal which also met with the same fate by the learned appellate court on 11-3-2011. Hence this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against law and facts and also based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence; the petitioner has successfully proved the requirements of talbs through his oral as well as documentary evidence but both the subordinate courts did not consider whole the evidence produced by the petitioner in a proper way and have also not applied their judicious mind while passing the impugned judgments.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has clearly mentioned in his plaint that he came to know about the impugned sale on 27-2-2005 and he at once announced his right of pre-emption in presence of informer Muhammad Asghar but during the cross-examination P.W.2/petitioner admitted that he came to know about the transaction on 27-2-2005 at his dera and he was informed by Muhammad Asghar and at the same time he announced his superior right of pre-emption qua the respondents over the property in dispute but in his examination-in-chief he did not mention that he at once exercised his right of pre-emption. He also did not disclose that he announced his right of pre-emption in presence of informer. It is also stark reality that the petitioner only produced single witness of talb-e-Muwathibat namely Muhammad Asghar who was the informer of the impugned sale. There are series of judgments of the Apex Court of this country in which it has mentioned that the talb-e-Muwathibat must be announced in presence of informer and two witnesses.
5. The petitioner has also not proved talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with law. Petitioner in his statement has clearly admitted that he cannot mention exact whether the notices of talb-e-Ishhad Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 are the same notices which were sent to the respondents. Whereas notice of talb-e-Ishhad was written by Clerk Shahbaz but the said person was not produced as P.W. in the case. From the perusal of whole the record I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not successfully proved the talbs in accordance with law.
6. Furthermore there is concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have taken into consideration all the material aspects of the case. The findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction. There is no force in the instant civil revision and the same is dismissed in limine. KMZ/M-234/L Petition dismissed.