MUKHTIAR ALI alias MUMTAZ ALI and others vs MUMTAZ AHMED and others
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revisions, thereby affirming an appellate court decision that dismissed the petitioners' suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the failure to produce both witnesses of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' in court is fatal to a pre-emption claim. The High Court had upheld the dismissal solely on the ground that only one of the two witnesses of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' was produced. The Supreme Court found that the production of both marginal witnesses in court is not a mandatory requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, or the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's reasoning was legally flawed. The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, converted them into appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision, noting that the High Court had failed to address other relevant issues in the case.
- Is the production of both witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad in court a mandatory requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- Does the failure to produce all marginal witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad in court automatically invalidate a pre-emption suit?
- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
- Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos. 3302 and 3303-L of 2003 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Through these petitions, petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 13-10-2003 vide which a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed petitioners Civil Revisions and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, dated 20-3-1996 vide which while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dated 26-2-1995 petitioners suit was dismissed.
3. The only ground which found favor with the learned High Court to uphold the judgment of the Appellate Court was that petitioners produced only one out of the two witnesses of "Talb-i-Ishhad".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that production of both the witnesses in Court is not mandatory requirement in law, that petitioner (P.W.1) and one of the witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad namely Sher Muhammad (P.W.2) had fully proved the performance of "Talb-iIshhad" and that the judgment of the learned High Court on that score is not only against the law but also reflects the material evidence on record.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has not been able to controvert the submissions made by petitioners learned counsel that production of two marginal witnesses in Court is not a mandatory requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 or under the Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984.
6. The contention raised by the petitioners learned counsel has force. However, since the learned High Court has not adverted to the other issues, we are inclined to allow these petitions, convert the same into appeals and while setting aside the impugned judgment we are remanding the cases to the learned High Court to decide the matter afresh. The Civil Revision Nos.725-D of 1996 and 801-D
Cited by 1 case
- SHER GHULAM vs GHULAM JAN and another 2012 PLJ Peshawar 82, 2012 CLC 334