Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2006 CLC 924

GHULAM YASIN vs ABDUL KARIM

Citation2006 CLC 924
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Civil Revision No.1238 of 2001
Date2005-03-24
Judge(s)Jawwad S. Khawaja
ResultPetition accepted

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.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch