KARIM KHAN Versus ALLAH DAD KHAN

ORDER

The only question that falls for determination, in this civil revision petition, is as to whether the petitioner/plaintiff had made "Talb‑i Muwathibat" strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1987.

2. The two Courts below have already come to a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant‑plaintiff had not made "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act.

,3. A.perusal of the plaintiff's (Karim Khan) statement, copy appended with this petitioner, would show that he came to know about the sale in question through Shah Jehan Araen, that thereafter he went to the Patwari Halqa and asked him about the sale, that the Patwari Halqa also confirmed the factum of the transaction in question and that it was thereafter that he declared his intention to pre‑empt the, transaction. For the sake of convenience the opening part of his statement recorded by trial Court, on oath, as P.W.4, is reproduced below:

4. Under section 13 of the N.W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987, the pre‑1 emptor has to make Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" immediately after acquiring the knowledge of sale. It, therefore, means that he has to declare his intention to exercise his right of pre‑emption in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) is which he comes to know about the sale transaction.

5. In an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Civil Appeal No.560) titled Zargum Shah. v. Muhammad Yaqub Khan, it was held that "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" or the immediate demand is to be made, thus, on receipt of the information.

6. According to his own admission the plaintiff was informed about the sale in question by Shah Jehan. He did not make any declaration regarding his intention to pre‑empt the suit transaction in the presence of said Shah Jehan and thereby lost his right of pre‑emption by delaying pronouncement of his intention to pre‑empt the transaction in question. Needless to mention that the delay caused in making the requisite "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" invalidates E the right of pre‑emption.

7. In any opinion the two Courts below have, therefore, committed no illegality or irregularity nor have they misread or non‑read the evidence. Accordingly there is no need for this Court to interfere with their verdict in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction this revision petition is without any substance and is dismissed in‑ limine

Q.M.H./M.A.K./24/P Revision dismissed.