The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Article 79, 129(g)
The Evidence Act, 1872
Section 68
Sold the Land–– The sale was admitted/not denied by the two sellers who had a two-third share in the said land and the third seller did not come forward to testify. Apparently, the plaintiff’s husband was interested in the land and he had himself also filed the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Swabi in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Swabi was guided by correct legal principles and the judgment in appeal ought not to have been set aside in revision and that too on the mistaken ground that the sale was not established by disregarding the aforesaid facts.–– Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. Since two judgments were passed in favour of the respondent No.1, there shall be no order as to cost. .....Jehangir =VS= Mst. Shams Sultana, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (SC) 14] ....View Full Judgment

The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Pre-emption–
A pre-emption suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely Manzoor Hussain, to seek pre-emption of two kanals and nineteen marlas of land sold vide sale mutation No. 2830 dated 5 May 2001. The suit was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court vide judgment dated 27 November 2006 on the ground that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses. However, the appeal which was filed was allowed by the learned District Judge, Chakwal vide judgment dated 25 February 2008 and the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the respondent (purchaser) invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the learned Judge of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 14 October 2014 was pleased to allow it on the grounds that the pre-emptor failed to establish delivery or receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice and the postman who took the said notice for delivery was not produced, consequently, the pre-emption suit filed by Manzoor Hussain was again dismissed.
The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 explicitly sets out the documents which must be produced in original, which in the present case would be the registered post receipt (exhibit P3) and acknowledgment receipt (exhibit P4), and photo copies, that is secondary evidence, could only be produced as permitted; and as regards extracts of official records, that is, the aks shajarah kishtwar (exhibit P2), mutation (exhibit P5) and jamabandi (exhibit P6), certified copies thereof had to be tendered in evidence. In not observing the rules of evidence unnecessary complications for litigants are created, which may result in avoidable adverse orders or in the case being remanded on such score, which would be avoided by abiding by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. This appeal is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. ...Manzoor Hussain =VS= Misri Khan, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (SC) 31] ....View Full Judgment