Pakistan Case Law
2008 SCMR 1444

HAMEEDULLAH KHAN and others vs Mst. ZEENAT KHATOON

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 SCMR 1444
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,2136-L of 2002
Date2004-02-16
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Authored byIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained an appellate court's decision in a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court and subsequent appellate courts erred in admitting a photostat copy of a notice regarding Talb-e-Ishhad as evidence, given that the original had been sent to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the notice was not duly proved and that the photostat copy was inadmissible under the law. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the respondent, having sent the original notice to the petitioners, was entitled to tender the copy in her possession as evidence. The Court found the trial court's acceptance of this secondary evidence legally sound and distinguished the case from the precedent cited by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that no valid point of law was raised to warrant further interference.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a photostat copy of a notice of Talb-e-Ishhad admissible as evidence when the original has been sent to the opposing party?
  • Does the acceptance of a copy of a notice as evidence constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit?
pre-emptionTalb-e-Ishhadadmissibility of evidencesecondary evidenceleave to appealcivil revision

ORDER

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7th May, 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent instituted a suit for possession through pre - emption in respect of property details whereof have been mentioned in the plaint. Suit was contested by the petitioners. However, learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides and having gone through the evidence, led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, dismissed the suit judgment dated 10th March, 1997 on the ground that respondents-pre-emptors have failed to prove Talbs. Learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, set aside the judgment of the Civil Court by means of judgment, dated 3rd June, 2000. On appeal, the judgment of the Appellate Court has been maintained by the learned High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction vide impugned judgment dated 7th May, 2002. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that Talb-eIshhad was not duly performed and the respondents failed to prove the notice that it was duly issued and served upon the petitioners. According to him a photostat copy of notice was brought on record to prove the Talbs but the same was not admissible in law, therefore, an objection was raised during the statement of P.W. Zeenat Khatoon. In support of his contention, he was relied upon the judgment reported as Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafique 2001 SCM R 1651.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the case-law being relied upon by the learned counsel. It is to be noted that as far as P.W.1 Zeenat Khatoon is concerned, she has tendered copy of notice which was in her possession, after sending the original to the petitioners, therefore, in our opinion, the Court was legally right to accept its photostat copy and on this score, no point is made out for grant of leave to appeal. The judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable, in view of the facts and circumstances of instant case.

5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.

Leave to appeal refused.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.