2017 YLR Note 98 [Lahore]
S. 13—Talbs, performance of—Talb-e-Muwathibat—Requirements—Plaintiff had not mentioned in the plaint the exact day, time, date and place as to when and where he performed Talb-i-Muwathibat—Effect—Preemptor should have mentioned in plaint the exact date, time, place and when and where he performed Talb-iMuwathibat as the same was mandatory requirement of law—Right of pre-emption would be extinguished in case of pre-emptor’s failure to do so—Decree for possession through pre-emption could not be passed, in circumstances.
S. 13—Talbs, performance of—Talb-i-Ishhad—Non-producing of postman as witness—Effect—Pre-emptor was under legal obligation to produce postman of concerned post office to prove the service of notice of Talb-iIshhad, in case the vendee denied the service of notice—Pre-emptor having failed to do the same, decree for possession through pre emption could not be passed in circumstances.
S.13—Talbs, performance of—Talb-i-Ishhad–Acknowledgement-due receipt of post office not placed on record— Effect—Pre emptor failed to place acknowledgement-due receipt on record in order to prove that he sent the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad through postal service receipt (A.D)—Such being mandatory provision of law, decree for possession through pre-emption could not be passed, in circumstances.
S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Concurrent findings—Revisional jurisdiction of High Court was limited and same could be exercised only in case where subordinate court had exercised its jurisdiction, not vested by law.