Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 966 of 1985, decided on 2nd March, 1986.

(On appeal from judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 30‑9‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 390/D of 1985).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 6 15‑ Respondent's suit for pre‑emption, in respect of land purchased by petitioner, dismissed on ground that before purchase of suit land a document was written in which respondent and others relinquished their right of pre‑emption‑‑Trial Court holding that said document was duly proved on basis of oral evidence‑‑Suit of respondent decreed by Appellate Court and High Court on ground that said document was not proved. Leave to appeal refused.

Wahiduddin Virk, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court with Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1986.

.‑‑Faiz Ahmad respondent had filed a suit against Ali Ahmad petitioner regarding the sale of land measuring 9 Kanals and some Marlas. In that suit the parties agreed that if Faiz Ahmad made special oath on the Holy Quran that he had not executed and signed the document Exh.D/1 that suit be decreed in favour of Faiz Ahmad. The oath was taken by Faiz Ahmad that he had not dxecuted or signed the document Exh.D/1, and, therefore, that suit was decreed in favour of Faiz Ahmad.

2. Faiz Ahmad respondent filed another suit for pre‑emption regarding 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land purchased by Ali Ahmad. Before the purchase of this land, document EXh.D/1 was written in which it was stated that Faiz Ahmad and others have relinquished their rights of pre‑emption regarding 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land. The trial Court held that the document Exh.D/1 was duly proved on the basis of oral evidence, and consequently, dismissed respondent Faiz Ahmad's suit. He filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, per order dated 2‑5‑1985 and suit was decreed holding that the document Exh . D / 1 was not proved. Against this judgment and decree, revision petition was filed which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 30‑9‑1985.

3. By this petition leave is now sought to appeal against the impugned judgment on the ground that petitioner had purchased the land not only with the consent of the respondent but also that the latter had agreed in writing to relinquish his right of pre‑emption. Exh.D/l.is the document upon which the petitioner placed reliance. A careful reading of the said documents does show that Faiz Ahmad respondent had in unequivocal terms, relinquished his right to pre‑empt the land but this document became disputed matter in another suit for pre‑emption of an area of nine Kanals purchased by the petitioner and pre‑empted by the present respondent. The respondent, however, denied execution of the A said document whereupon the petitioner offered him to take special oath as to its authenticity. The respondent accepted the offer and took a special oath and in fact, made it on Holy Quran denying the execution of the said document Exh.D/1 in that suit. The same document was made the mainstay of the petitioner's case in the suit relating to land measuring 23 Kanals and 18 Marlas. The trial Court held it to be a genuine document but the learned District Judge disagreed regarding its authenticity and so Learned High Court Judge. We find no substance in this petition refused, Petition is, consequently, dismissed.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.