1998 PLP 521 (SCMR)
Mst. WAZIRAN alias FAIZ ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 521 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. WAZIRAN alias FAIZ ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 521 (SCMR)?
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 1998 PLP 521 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 521 (SCMR) (Mst. WAZIRAN alias FAIZ ELLAHI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1996.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 8‑11‑1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No. 281‑D of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Trial Court found that plaintiff had superior right being co‑sharer and joint Khatedar of land in question, but dismissed suit on the ground that he had not fulfilled requirements of Talabs‑‑‑Plaintiff's appeal as also his revision met the same fate‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court on examination of evidence produced by plaintiff recorded finding that no reference was made to the Talab‑i‑Muwathibat while making Talab‑i‑Ishhad and that omission thereof, was fatal to claim of plaintiff‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether averments made in specific para. of plaint and notice would indicate that plaintiff had performed all legal requirements of law as Talabs, contemplated by Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991; whether notice in question expressly mentioned names of all respondents and same was duly served on them; and whether order of High Court was based on misreading of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, J.
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 8-11-1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No.281-D of 1995.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through pre emption in respect of the suit land against the respondents. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, the trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated 2-11-1993 held that the plaintiff had superior right being co-sharer and joint Khatadar of the suit land but dismissed the suit on the ground that he had not fulfilled the requirements of Talabs. The petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court also failed. The revision petition met the same fate in the High Court.
3. The learned Judge in Chamber on examination of the evidence produced by the petitioner recorded a finding that no reference was made to Talab-e Mawathibat while making Talab-e-Ishhad and that of omission thereof was fatal to the claim of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the plaint and notice Exh.P-1 to contend that the petitioner had performed all the legal requirements of law as Talabs as contemplated by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. It is further contended that notice Exh. P-1 expressly mentions the name of all the respondents and it was duly served on them. Thus, the impugned order is based on misreading of evidence. Leave is granted to consider the aforesaid questions. A.A./W-157/S Leave granted.