MAJEEDAN Versus AMANULLAH

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J .‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave, to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 25‑2‑1992 whereby the Civil Revision of the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The petitioners filed a suit for pre‑emption which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 11‑3‑1991. The petitioners' appeal before the learned District Judge and Revision Petition before the High Court were dismissed by the respective Courts.

3. The suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the principle laid down in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360). The learned High Court also took notice of the judgment of this Court reported as Government of N.‑W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (P LD 1990 S C 865).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have a superior right of pre‑emption, therefore, their suit could not be dismissed. The learned counsel has relied upon Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif (1992 SCMR 1129). Now, the final judgment on the subject has been passed by this Court in Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1'.992 SCMR 445) which has specifically stated that "Only those suits which were pending before the commencement of the Act 1987 will not abate where the right of pre‑emption is claimed by such pre‑emptors in whom the rig; ht of pre‑emption vests under section 6 of the said Act and they have made a demand of pre‑emption (Talab) as required under the provisions of section 13 thereof." Section 13 of the Act clearly provides that "the right of pre‑emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands for pre‑emption". The learned counsel admits that no Talabs had been made by the pre‑ emptor in the present matter. However, he submitted that no issue was framed, therefore, the petitioners could not prove that the requisite Talabs had beets made. Talabs are conditions precedent for institution of a suit. The plaint does not specifically state that any Talab had been made.

5. All the three Courts have taken a correct and legal view. This petition has no force. The same accordingly is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

A.A./M‑1925/S Leave refused.