Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LIAQAT ALI VS Respondent: NAAZIR ALIHonorable Justice Mian Saqib Nisar
2011 Y L R 1589
[Lahore]
Before Mian Saqib Nisar, J
LIAQAT ALI---Petitioner
Versus
NAAZIR ALI----Respondent
Civil Revision No.2354 of 2009, decided on 13th November, 2009.
Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---
----Ss. 6 & 13---Suit for pre-emption---Making of talbs---Suit was concurrently dismissed by the courts below on the ground that plaintiff had failed to make talbs in accordance with law---Contradiction existed between the statement of the plaintiff and his witness with regard to time of making Talb-e-Muwathibat---Witness who was stated to have informed the plaintiff about the sale, in his examination-in-chief had not given the exact date, time and venue where information was passed on to the plaintiff---On account of such quality of evidence, the plaintiff had failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat---Notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was also not sent within 15 days as required under the law---Second talb was not validly made, in circumstances---No error was found in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction--- Petition was dismissed.
Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate.
ORDER
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The cause of pre-emption propounded by the petitioner against the respondent has failed at both the forums below on the issue of Talbs; respective judgments and decrees of the Courts below are dated 17-5-2008 and 29-8-2009. It has been categorically found by the two Courts that though in the plaint the petitioner claims that he had learnt about the sale Mutation dated 16-5-2003 on 28-7-2003 and thereafter served upon the vendee with a notice of Talb-e-lshhad on 30-7-2003, but while appearing as a witness, he himself has stated that:- It is further stated in his cross-examination that:- P.W.2 Abdul Majeed, who is stated to have informed the petitioner about the sale, in his examination-in-chief has not given the exact date, time and the venue where the information was passed on to the petitioner and he allegedly made Talb-e-Muwathibat. However, in the cross-examination it is stated by him that:- This is a clear contradiction between the two statements. Moreover, P.W.3. who is another witness of the petitioner states in the cross-examination that:- Obviously, on account of such poor quality of evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat in the above context taking his statement that he learnt about the sale after one month of the mutation, which is dated 16-5-2003. The notice of Talb-e-Ishhad dated 30-7-2003 was also not sent within 15 days as required under the law, therefore, the second Talb is also not validly made. In the light of above, I do not find any error in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./L-2/L Petition dismissed.