MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others vs WALAYAT KHAN
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had non-suited the petitioner in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had successfully proven the performance of the necessary legal requirements of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-i-Ishhad' as mandated by the law of pre-emption. The High Court, concurring with the trial court's findings on Issue No. 13, determined that the petitioner failed to establish these requirements. Specifically, the courts found that while the disputed sale was completed on April 4, 1995, the petitioner performed the first Talb only on July 18, 1995, well beyond the statutory obligation to perform the first Talb within 15 days of the sale's completion. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to contradict the factual determination regarding the delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the failure to perform the Talbs within the prescribed time limit renders the pre-emption claim unsustainable.
- Is a pre-emption suit maintainable if the Talb-i-Muwathibat is performed beyond the statutory period of 15 days from the date of sale?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the performance of Talbs in pre-emption cases?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, I.--- Petitioner/pre-emptor has been non-suited by the learned Lahore High Court and Appellate Courts' judgment was reversed on the ground that he failed to prove "Talb-i-Muwathibat" and "Talb-i-Ishhad".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned High Court has misread and non- read the material evidence with regard to the performance of "Talbs" and that the judgment is not sustainable.
3. While disbelieving the evidence produced by the petitioner with regard to the performance of "Talbs" the High Court concurred with the learned trial Court on Issue No,13 and observed as under:- "What deciding Issue No,13 the learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff has produced his evidence to prove that he has completed the requirements of Talbs according to law enforced. The learhed trial Court while discussing the evidence of P.W.3 Qalb-e-Hussain, P.W.4 Nadar Hussain and Muhammad Sharif, P.W.5, observed that the plaintiff completed the requirement of Talb-i- Muwathibat on 18-7-1995 but according to the contents of the plaint the disputed sale was completed on 4-4-1995 and the first Talb, was completed on 18-7-1995 while the plaintiff was under obligation to complete first Talb within 15 days of the completion of sale."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not referred to any piece of evidence which could persuade us to interfere with the afore-referred finding of the High Court as also of the trial Court.
That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and .
Cited by 2 cases
- Farzand Ali vs Muhammad Ishaq 2017 LHC 4327
- FARZAND ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ 2018 YLR 1313