2004 PLP 1069 (YLR)
AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1069 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1069 (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 2004 PLP 1069 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1069 (YLR) (AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ihsan Ullah Khan Lilla for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 13
Suit for pre-emption-- Making of Talbs
Appellate Court after examining evidence on record had come to the conclusion that plaintiff had been unable to prove making of Talb-e- Muwathibat
Testimony of witness of plaintiff had been duly considered by Appellate Court
Discrepancies and contradictions were found in the testimony of witness of plaintiff
Effect
Judgment of Trial Court whereby suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, was rightly set aside by the Appellate Court in view of the discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of witness of the plaintiff-- Plaintiff was unable to advert to any jurisdictional error or legal infrmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court
Judgment and decree of Appellate Court would not require interference of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Ihsan Ullah Khan Lilla for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th June, 2003. This revision petition filed by the petitioner impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 11-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian. The learned lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 18-5-1998 whereby a pre emption suit filed by the petitioner had been decreed. As a result of the appellate judgment the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. The only issue of relevance in the present petition relates to Talbs which was framed in the fallowing terms:-- "Whether the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of Talbs under the law of pre-emption? OPP"
2. The learned lower Appellate Court has examined the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been unable to prove Talb-e- Muwathibat. The testimony of the petitioner's witnesses has peen ditty considered by the learned lower Appellate Court. I have also gone through the said testimony with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and note that there are discrepancies and contradictions in such testimony. Furthermore, the petitioner, who has asserted that he was out of the country at the relevant time, has not produced his passport to prove the dates on which he was out of Pakistan. He has given specific dates of his exit and return to Pakistan for periods subsequent to the date of the impugned sale but has not done so far the second half of 1990 which is the material period for the purpose of the present litigation. This circumstance has also been noted by the learned lower Appellate Court while allowing the, appeal of the respondents and dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which would require interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-45/L Revision dismissed.