GHULAM JILANI Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD
The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding disputed land, which was dismissed by the trial court after it found that the necessary formalities of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad had not been effectively proved. The dismissal was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in civil revision. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal, contending that there was a conflict of opinion regarding the proof of these pre-emption formalities, specifically pointing to a differing view previously taken in Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad. The Supreme Court examined the contention and held that the matter required further examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security.
- Whether the necessary formalities regarding the performance of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad were effectively proved by the plaintiffs?
- Whether there exists a conflict of opinion in judicial precedents regarding the proof of pre-emption demands requiring resolution by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J. ‑‑The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption in respect of the disputed land situated in Mohal Karez Ibrahimzai, Mauza Sirki, Tappa Saddar Kansi, Tehsil Quetta, measuring 4 Rodes 27 Pols. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed in the suit was whether the plaintiffs had performed the Talab‑e‑Ishhad and Mowasibat. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 31‑5‑1984 and so also the appeal of the petitioners by Additional District Judge vide Judgment dated 21‑4‑1987. The two decisions in the case were challenged by the petitioner in the High Court by means of a civil revision, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. The question as to whether necessary formalities regarding performance of Talab‑e‑Mowasibat and Talab‑e‑Ishhad had been effectively proved by the petitioners, was examined by the learned High Court. Reliance on behalf of the petitioners was placed in the case of Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad (P L D 1985 Karachi 161), but the learned Judge in the High Court diffared from the view taken in the said judgment. In the circumstances, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was necessary to resolve the conflict of opinion expressed in P L D 1985 Karachi 161 peso, the impugned judgment.
The contention, inter alia, requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500.
M.I./G‑125/S Leave granted