1999SCMR1332 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999SCMR1332 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR1332 (PLP)?
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 1999SCMR1332 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR1332 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. _
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 8-10-1996 passed in Civil Revision No. 173-D of 1996).
S. 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for pre-emption -- Three Courts below including the High Court had decreed plaintiff's suit-- Validity
Defendant had urged only one point that Courts below had erred in recording conclusion that Talb-i-Muwathibat as contemplated by law had been duly made
Such question had been dealt with in detail by Courts below
High Court on basis of material on record had concluded that plaintiffs had served defendant with written notice; such written notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due
All necessary particulars of defendant were given on acknowledgement due and they tallied with his address as given in revision petition filed before High Court
Conclusion arrived at by High Court was not contrary to law
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 8-10-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby the revision petition directed against judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed in lmine.
2. The only point urged in support of the petition is that learned Courts below have erred in recording the conclusion that Talb-i-Muwathibat as contemplated by law had been duly made. This question has been dealt with by learned Courts below in detail. Learned Judge of the High Court, in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, held that the plaintiffs had served the defendant/petitioner with a written notice dated 24-11-1992 (Exh. P. /W.l/1) as per statement of Sinai Hussain P.W.1, the scribe of notice. The written notice was sent by registered post/Acknowledgement Due (EXh.P.W.I/2) All necessary particulars of defendant/petitioner were given on the A.D. and they tallied with his address as given in the revision petition filed before the High Court.
3. We find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below is not contrary to law and see no reason to take a different view in take matter. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./R-205/S;- Leave refused.