MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs Raja MUHAMMAD ISHAQ S — 2022 MLD 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ABBAS VS Raja MUHAMMAD ISHAQ S.13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 18---Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad---Proof---Improvement, effects of---Respondent's suit for pre-emption was dismissed by Trial Court but in appeal same was allowed---Respondent claimed in plaint that he acquired knowledge of sale on 21/05/1995---Contention of petitioner/vendee was that respondent acquired knowledge of sale on 08/05/1995; requisite Talbs were never made; respondent was an active participant of sale transaction and had knowledge of the sale throughout---Validity---Perusal of notice showed that respondent neither mentioned the date, time or place of alleged knowledge of sale nor gave the name of informer and simply asserted that on acquiring knowledge of sale, he allegedly made announcement of his right of pre-emption---Names of witnesses were given in the context of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which was allegedly dated 29/05/1995---Plaintiff made improvement in plaint asserting that at 07.00 a.m. he made the first announcement of pre-emptory right---Plaintiff appearing as witness made further improvements---Such improvements rendered stance of respondent highly doubtful---Witness expressed lack of knowledge in reply to suggestion regarding respondent's presence in sale transaction---Respondent was real brother of petitioner; was resident of house nearby the suit plot; admitted that petitioner was in possession of suit property and that evidence on record proved that signboard was affixed at the site after sale of plot, which fact was not cross-examined; and also the evidence on record indicated that respondent actively participated in sale transaction and was fully aware of the sale from day one---Petitioner/vendee had denied the performance of requisite Talbs in preliminary objections and also in evidence; and had denied the receipt of notice as well---Respondent did not make any effort to produce the postman who had allegedly delivered the notice particularly when the signatures on "Acknowledgement Due" were not admitted and his own witnesses had expressed in cross-examination lack of knowledge as to posting/delivery of notice---Revision petition was accepted accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs Raja MUHAMMAD ISHAQ S — 2022 MLD 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD