MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's three suits for possession of shops through preemption. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had satisfied the mandatory requirements for performing 'Talbs' (demands) under the law of preemption. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's failure to prove the performance of the requisite Talbs. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suits, holding that it would not reappraise evidence to reach a different conclusion in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the performance of Talbs in preemption cases unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, as the Court is not expected to re-evaluate evidence to reach a different factual conclusion.
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to reach a different conclusion when lower courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the performance of Talbs?
- Is the performance of Talbs a mandatory requirement for a preemption suit under the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991?
- Punjab Preemption Act, 1991
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner filed three separate suits for possession of the three shops through preemption. His suits were dismissed by the Civil Judge as well as by the Additional District Judge, Daska District Sialkot, respectively, vide judgments dated 26-2-2005 and 14-2-2006, on the ground of his failure to perform requisite Talbs. He, therefore, filed Civil Revisions Nos.1411, 1412 and 1413 of 2006 which were also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 4-12- 2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. The learned counsel argued that from the evidence on record it was clearly proved that the petitioner had duly prolonged requisite Talbs. It was also established that the petitioner had made Talb-i-Muwathibat the very moment he had come to know about the sale of the suit properties.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. The High Court and the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact after proper appreciation of evidence on record, that the petitioner had failed to prove the performance of Talbs as required by the provisions of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. We are not expected to reappraise the evidence for the purpose of coming to a different conclusion without their being any exceptional circumstances. The impugned judgment is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.