ATAUL HAQ AND Another vs Master GHULAM RASOOL
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's regular second appeal upholding the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerns the failure of the lower courts to explicitly dispose of issue No. 4 regarding the service of a legal notice on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the High Court's view were fully justified, as the petitioner failed to lead any evidence or duly prove the copies of the notices at the trial stage, and no statutory notice as required by law was served on the plaintiff-pre-emptor. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits after condoning the delay.
- Whether the failure of courts to dispose of an issue is fatal when no evidence was led by the party on that point?
- Is a pre-emption suit liable to succeed where no statutory notice as required by the Punjab Pre-emption Act was served on the plaintiff?
- Whether documents produced at a late stage without being duly proved in evidence can be relied upon?
- Section 19, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.--This is a .Petition for special leave from the judgment and decree dated 2nd of March 1977, whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed in limine a regular second appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent. It is barred by eight days and in view of the circumstances explained in the application under Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956 we hereby condone the delay and proceed to its disposal on the merits. .
2. On the 14th of September 1970 Mst. Sughra Begum sold the land in dispute to the petitioner for Rs.
3. 6,000. The respondent successfully pre-empted the sale and the decree thus passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the District Judge on first appeal and upheld by the High Court in second appeal.
4. The only objection raised before us in this petition against the judgment is that all the three Courts have failed to dispose of issue No. 4 framed in the suit: This issue is as under;---- "Whether any legal notice was served on the plaintiff, if so, its effect ?--- The grievance of the petitioner is that the two lower Courts had acted illegally in their failure to dispose of this issue at all. However, the learned Judge in Chambers had sent for record and on going through it he found that no evidence was led by the petitioner on the point. Before the High Court the learned counsel relied on copies of three notices and one postal certificate. . But in the opinion of the High Court, these documents were produced at a very late stage and the learned trial Court did not allow them to be proved for this reason. This order passed by the trial Court was unexceptionable.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find that this view formed by the learned Judge in Chambers was fully justified. The copies of the notices produced by the petitioner were not duly proved in the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses in that connection was whole inconclusive and could not be relied upon. Admittedly no statutory notice as required by section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act was at all served on the plaintiff-pre-emptor. This petition has therefore, no force and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL CHAUDHRY And Others vs ANWAR ALI 1989 MLD 148