2006 PLP 924 (CLC)
GHULAM YASIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 924 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM YASIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 924 (CLC)?
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 2006 PLP 924 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 924 (CLC) (GHULAM YASIN — Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Khurshid Alam for Petitioner.
- Malik Ijaz Hussain Gorecha for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Making of Talbs
Trial Court found that Talb-i-Ishhad had not been proved by plaintiff because neither the scribe of said notice nor two witnesses were questioned with reference to the notice
Trial Court was fully justified in concluding that plaintiff had failed to prove requirements of S.13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 in respect of Talb-i-Ishhad
Appellate Court below which had reversed finding of Trial Court, had not adverted to material aspect of the case
Reasoning of Trial Court, had been ignored entirely in appellate judgment and decree
Said judgment and decree of Appellate Court below being result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction were set aside and judgment and decree of Trial Court stood restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Ghulam Yasin (petitioner/defendant) impugns the appellate judgment and decree, dated 26-2-2001 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 10-9-1996 was set aside and the suit filed by Abdul Karim (respondent/plaintiff) seeking possession of the suit-land through pre-emption, was decreed.
2. The only issue of relevance is Issue No.3 relating to Talbs which was framed in the following terms:-- "Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the conditions of Talbs as required by Islamic law of pre-emption? OPP"
3. The learned trial Court held that Exh.P.1, which was a photostat copy of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, had not been proved because neither the scribe of the said notice nor the two attesting witnesses were questioned with reference to the said Exh.P.1. It is clear from the record that Exh.P.1 was never put to the alleged attesting witnesses, namely. Gulzar Hussain (P.W.3) and Maqsood Ahmed (P.W.4). Although these witnesses were asked if they had attested any notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, they were not shown Exh.P.1 for the purpose of proving if the said document, indeed, was the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which they had attested. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove the requirements of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act in respect of Talb-e-Ishhad. The learned Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue No.3 but has not adverted to the above material aspect of the case. The learned Appellate Court has only adverted to the testimony of the attesting witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 and to the statement of the Postmaster who appeared as P.W. The reasoning of the learned trial Court, discussed above, has been ignored entirely in the appellate judgment and decree. The said decree, therefore, is a result of illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the appellate decree is set aside. As a result, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 10-9-1996 stands restored. H.B.T./G-136/L Petition accepted