MUHAMMAD ABDUR RASHID AJMAL KHAN vs HASSAN KHAN And Other
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the High Court dated 27-1-1986 regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question concerns the propriety of decreeing a pre-emption suit based on the evidence of only one party when the vendor and vendee did not produce evidence and contested the transaction. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, both the vendor and the vendee should be given an opportunity to present evidence to enable the trial Court to reach a correct conclusion. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the trial Court for a decision on merits after examining all contesting parties, including the heirs of the alleged vendees and vendors. The key principle laid down is that a matter should be remanded for fresh evidence when a decree is passed upon the testimony of a single party without affording contesting parties a proper opportunity to defend and lead evidence.
- Can a pre-emption suit be validly decreed on the sole evidence of the plaintiff when the vendor and vendee fail to produce evidence?
- Is it appropriate to remand a case to the trial Court for recording evidence of all contesting parties in the interest of justice?
- Whether the High Court's order accepting a revision petition against concurrent findings can be set aside when material parties were not given a proper chance to contest?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 27-1-1986.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the disputed property. According to the appellant, the vendor had sold the disputed land to Hassan Khan respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.5,000. Hassan Khan denied having purchased the suit land. The vendor was served through substituted service by publication in newspaper. After the publication of notice. An application was filed praying that !He names of defendants Nos.2 to 12 be struck off as they had nothing to do with the case. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant on payment of Rs.20,342 Hassan Khan challenged this order in appeal which was dismissed as Hassan Khan withdrew the same. Muhammad Ikramullah and others also filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge. They challenged these.
Orders before the High Court in a Revision Petition which was accepted.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Ikramullah and others initially contested the suit but then at the trial made a statement that they had not sold the land. The representatives of the vendors challenged the decree of the trial Court before the District Judge and the High Court. The High Court accepted their plea that there was no sale. The vendors and the vendees have not produced evidence. On the basis of the evidence of the appellant, the suit was decreed. It was stated by the appellant that the suit land was sold for a consideration of Rs.5,000. There is only Khasra Girdawari showing that he had paid the share of the produce to Hassan Khan. It is in the interest of justice that the vendor and the vendee may also be given a chance so that the trial Court may come to a correct conclusion. In this case, the decree was passed by the trial Court on the evidence of one party only.
4. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the trial Court with the direction to examine all the three contesting parties including the alleged vendees' heirs and vendors' heirs arid then decide the suit on merits.
There will be no order as to costs.