Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2021 Peshawar (Note) 150 [Bannu Bench] Present Sahibzada Asadullah J MEHBOOB SHAH - - Petitioner versus Sardar ALI KHAN and 10 others - - Respondents CR No 7 - B of 2016 decided on 2722020 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre - emption Act 1987 (X of 1987) - - - - - - S 13 - - Suit for possession through pre - emption - - Petitioner was failed to proving talb - e - muhhabat - - Non - producing of scriber of notice as witness - - Material contradictions - - Burden of prove - - Challenge to - - Petitioner had failed to prove making of Talb - e - Muwathibat in accordance with Pre - emption Act - - Scribe of notice has not been produced in witness box - - Evidence produced by plaintiff has been found with material contradictions and plaintiff despite burdened to prove requirements of Talb - i - Muwathibat and Talb - i - Ishhad has failed to prove same and once plaintiff fails to prove performance of Talbs in accordance with law no decree for possession through pre - emption can be passed in their favour - - Petition dismissed [Para 6 9 10] C E F 2013 YLR 145 ref Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre - emption Act 1987 (X of 1987) - - - - - - S 13 - - Stance of pre - emptor - - If pre - emptor in his plaint narrate time of knowledge as 0400 PM whereas his informer took different stance of such facts cannot be considered trustworthy and acceptable [Para 6] B 2007 CLC 819 and 1987 CLC 552 ref Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre - emption Act 1987 (X of 1987) - - - - - - S 13 (2) (3) - - Sending of notice - - Exercising of right of pre - emption - - Where a pre - emptor has made Talb - i - Muwathibat he shall as soon thereafter as possible but not later than two weeks from date of knowledge make Talb - i - Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses under registered cover acknowledgement due to vendee confirming his intention to exercise right of pre - emption [Para 7] D Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 115 - - Concurrent findings - - Exercising of powers - - High Court seldom interferes in concurrent findings arrived at by Courts below while exercising power under section 115 CPC unless and until findings on face of it are against evidence or so patently improbable or perverse that to accept same could amount to perpetuate a grave miscarriage of justice or if there has been any misapplication of principles relating to appreciation of evidence or if findings could be demonstrated to be impossible absolutely illegal and unwarranted under law [Para 11] G Oral evidence - - - - - - Where a fact is required to be proved through oral evidence such evidence must be direct and of primary source [Para 6] A Hafiz Muhammad Hanif Advocate for Petitioner Haji Habibur Rehman Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: (i) Service appeal not maintainable against provisional Seniority list.(ii) Person selected for the service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the person selected in a later selection.

Summary: Benami Transactions---appeal allowed--The case revolved around a dispute concerning land transfer. The appellant claimed that a compromise and statement were made before the Trial Court in a prior case titled "Allah Bakhsh versus Abdul Hameed" on 11.03.2002, in which two acres of land were to be transferred to each of the three brothers, including the appellant. The defendant, Abdul Hameed, denied this compromise and statement and refused to transfer the land.The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration, a decision upheld by the district court and the Lahore High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had not properly considered the evidence, including a registered document (Hibba Nama) and its reference to the earlier compromise. The Supreme Court noted that the presumption of correctness attached to registered documents, along with the absence of any challenge to the document's authenticity, supported the appellant's case.The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's suit was competent under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration of title. It set aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending