2020 PLP 16 (YLRN)
MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 16 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Shahid Bilal Hassan, J |
| Parties | MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 16 (YLRN)?
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 2020 PLP 16 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Shahid Bilal Hassan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 16 (YLRN) (MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Shahzad Hussain for Petitioner.
- Malik Zafar Mahboob Langrial for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Talb-i-muwathibat, perfor-mance of
Non-mentioning name of witness in the plaint; non-production of postman and postal acknowledgment due receipt
Effect
Petitioner had failed to prove performance of talb-i-muwathibat as per mandate of law
Mere mentioning of date, time and place of making such talb in the plaint was not sufficient rather the same had to be proved through unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence
Petitioner had failed to mention the name of witness in plaint in whose presence he had made talb-i-muwathibat--Service of addressee was also not proved through postman and even the AD (Acknowledgement Due) was not exhibited
Courts below had rightly non-suited the petitioner
Revision was dismissed. Mian Pir Muhammad and another's case PLD 2007 SC 302; Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar 2013 SCMR 866; Dr. Pir Muhammad Khan v. Khuda Bukhsh and others 2015 SCMR 1243; Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmed 2013 SCMR 721; Muhammad Abaidullah v. Ijaz Ahmed 2015 SCMR 394; Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool 2011 SCMR 762; Israr Ahmed and 3 others v. Haji Muhammad and another 2009 MLD 521; Subhanuddin and others v. Pir Ghulam PLD 2015 SC 69; Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 2017 SCMR 679; Mt. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 and Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.
Impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011 delivered by the learned Trial Court, whereby suit for possession on the basis of pre-emption, instituted by the petitioner(s) was dismissed as well as judgment and decree dated 20.01.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Court, through which appeal was dismissed.
2. Heard.
3. Perusal of the record goes to evince that the Petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove performance of talb-e-muwathibat as per mandate of law because mere mentioning of date, time, and place of making such talb in the plaint is not sufficient rather the same has to be proved through unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence, which. is lacking in this case, as has been discussed and appreciated by the learned Courts below, because the petitioner could not name the witnesses in plaint in whose presence he made talb-e-muwathibat. Moreover, the service of addressee has also not been proved through convincing and unimpeachable evidence as the postman could not bring record and even the A.D. has not been exhibited. As such the instant case is against the ratio of the celebrated judgment reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302), Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), Dr. Pir Muhammad Khan v. Khuda Bukhsh and others (2015 SCMR 1243), Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721), Muhammad Abaidullah v. Ijaz Ahmed (2015 SCMR 394), Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762), Israr Ahmed and 3 others v. Haji Muhammad and another (2009 MLD 521 and Subhanuddin and others v. Pir Ghulam (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 69). Thus, the learned Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner and have not committed any illegality or irregularity, impugned judgments and decrees do not need to be interfered with.
4. Pursuant to above while placing reliance on the judgments supra as well Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) and Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt., Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), the civil revision in hand, being devoid of any force and substance, stands dismissed with no order as to the costs. SA/M-153/L Petition dismissed.