Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

2009 SCMR 366

MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others

Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AZEEM VS Respondent: SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 2007-02-27

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ghulam Rabbani, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar Title: MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others Case No.: Civil Petitions Nos.388 to 390-L of 2007 Date of Judgment:2007-02-27 Reported As: 2009 SCMR 366 Result: Leave refused

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT ' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner filed three separate suits for possession of the three shops through preemption. His suits were dismissed by the Civil Judge as well as by the Additional District Judge, Daska District Sialkot, respectively, vide judgments dated 26-2-2005 and 14-2-2006, on the ground of his failure to perform requisite Talbs. He, therefore, filed Civil Revisions Nos.1411, 1412 and 1413 of 2006 which were also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 4-12- 2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 2. The learned counsel argued that from the evidence on record it was clearly proved that the petitioner had duly prolonged requisite Talbs. It was also established that the petitioner had made Talb-i-Muwathibat the very moment he had come to know about the sale of the suit properties. 3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. The High Court and the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact after proper appreciation of evidence on record, that the petitioner had failed to prove the performance of Talbs as required by the provisions of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. We are not expected to reappraise the evidence for the purpose of coming to a different conclusion without their being any exceptional circumstances. The impugned judgment is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories