2011 PLP 1589 (YLR)
LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus NAAZIR ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1589 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus NAAZIR ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1589 (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 2011 PLP 1589 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1589 (YLR) (LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus NAAZIR ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of talbs
Suit was concurrently dismissed by the courts below on the ground that plaintiff had failed to make talbs in accordance with law
Contradiction existed between the statement of the plaintiff and his witness with regard to time of making Talb-e-Muwathibat
Witness who was stated to have informed the plaintiff about the sale, in his examination-in-chief had not given the exact date, time and venue where information was passed on to the plaintiff
On account of such quality of evidence, the plaintiff had failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat
Notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was also not sent within 15 days as required under the law
Second talb was not validly made, in circumstances
No error was found in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction
Petition was dismissed. Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The cause of pre-emption propounded by the petitioner against the respondent has failed at both the forums below on the issue of Talbs; respective judgments and decrees of the Courts below are dated 17-5-2008 and 29-8-2009. It has been categorically found by the two Courts that though in the plaint the petitioner claims that he had learnt about the sale Mutation dated 16-5-2003 on 28-7-2003 and thereafter served upon the vendee with a notice of Talb-e-lshhad on 30-7-2003, but while appearing as a witness, he himself has stated that:- It is further stated in his cross-examination that:- P.W.2 Abdul Majeed, who is stated to have informed the petitioner about the sale, in his examination-in-chief has not given the exact date, time and the venue where the information was passed on to the petitioner and he allegedly made Talb-e-Muwathibat. However, in the cross-examination it is stated by him that:- This is a clear contradiction between the two statements. Moreover, P.W.3. who is another witness of the petitioner states in the cross-examination that:- Obviously, on account of such poor quality of evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat in the above context taking his statement that he learnt about the sale after one month of the mutation, which is dated 16-5-2003. The notice of Talb-e-Ishhad dated 30-7-2003 was also not sent within 15 days as required under the law, therefore, the second Talb is also not validly made. In the light of above, I do not find any error in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./L-2/L Petition dismissed.