AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN vs KAFAYATULLAH KHAN
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his civil revision, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing his pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had successfully satisfied the statutory and legal requirements regarding the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in a pre-emption matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts and the High Court had rightly recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, and in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence, such findings could not be interfered with. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact on the issue of Talbs, when based on proper appraisal of evidence and free of misreading or non-reading, are unexceptionable in appellate review, and leave to appeal will be refused where no question of law of public importance arises.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat can be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to prove the fulfillment of the requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat?
- Does a petition against concurrent findings of lower courts involving no question of law of public importance warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the impugned judgment, dated 11-12-2006, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,1403 of 2006.
2. The suit of the petitioner for pre-emption of the suit-land measuring 16 Kanals and 12 Marlas was dismissed throughout on the ground that he had failed to satisfy the requirements of Talb-e- Muwathibat.
3. The learned counsel argued that date and time of Talb-e-Muwathibat could very well be ascertained from the plaint as well as from the statements of P.W.1 Wazir Muhammad Khan, P.W.2 Abdul Hameed and that of the petitioner P.W.3. The High Court and the Courts below took an erroneous view on the issue of Talbs.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent Kafayatullah supported the impugned judgment of the High Court as well that of the Courts below.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. In our view, the High Court as well as the subordinate Courts have justifiably recorded concurrent findings of fact on the point of non-performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. In the absence of non-reading or misreading of material evidence, we are not expected to substitute such findings. No question of law of public importance is involved in this petition. The impugned judgment of High Court is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.