P L D 2004 Peshawar 154 (PLP)
AMANUL MULK‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2004 Peshawar 154 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Talaat Qayum Qureshi, J |
| Parties | AMANUL MULK‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (IV of 1987)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Peshawar 154 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (IV of 1987)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2004 Peshawar 154 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Talaat Qayum Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Peshawar 154 (PLP) (AMANUL MULK‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Gul for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 13‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Making of Talbs‑‑‑Plaintiff not only had failed to mention the date, time and place when he made Talb‑i- Muwathibat in his plaint, but also had failed to mention said facts in his statement when he was examined as witness‑‑‑Mentioning of date, time and place when Talb‑i‑Muwathibat was made, was a must to be mentioned in the plaint‑‑‑Appellate Court had rightly appreciated said legal position‑‑‑In absence of any misreading or non‑reading of evidence or any material illegality or jurisdictional error or defect in judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, said judgment and decree could not be interfered with. 2002 CLC 336 and Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 ref.
Judgment & Decree
2002 CLC 336 and Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 ref. Shahzad Gul for Petitioner Amanul Mulk petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against Muhammad Hayat Khan respondent/defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge Mardan seeking the possession by pre‑emption of land mentioned in the heading of the plaint. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, decreed the suit in favour of petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12‑6‑2002. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant filed Appeal No.104/13 of 2002 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge‑III, Mardan which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 16‑12‑2003, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. Being not contented with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Shahzad Gul the learned counsel representing the petitioner/plaintiff, argued that the learned Appellate Court has non suited the petitioner on the sole ground that he has not mentioned the date, time and place when he made Talb‑i‑Muwathibat in his plaint and the mentioning of those facts in the plaint were not necessary. Reliance in this regard was placed on 2002 CLC 336.
3. It was also argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has proved his case through convincing and reliable evidence which was appreciated by the learned trial Court but the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same:
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am afraid, cannot help the petitioner because the perusal of record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff not only failed to mention the date, time and place when he made Talb‑i‑Muwathibat in his plaint but he also failed to mention the same facts in his statement when he was examined as PW.4. The mentioning of date, time and place when Talb‑i- Muwathibat was made, was must to be mentioned in the plaint as held in A the case reported as Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315), therefore, the learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the said legal position.
5. I have not been able to find out any misreading or non‑reading of evidence or any material illegality or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./104/P Revision petition dismissed