MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and 3 others
This appeal, brought by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenges the High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision petition concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the lower courts had committed misreading or non-reading of evidence regarding the respondents' pleadings and their intent to enforce the right of pre-emption over the entire suit land. The appellant contended that the respondents' pleadings indicated an intention to enforce pre-emption only partially, rather than regarding the entire property. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the plaint and found that the respondents had clearly expressed a desire to enforce their right of pre-emption under all circumstances, regardless of potential failures in the underlying sale transaction. The Court held that there was no evidence of misreading or non-reading by the lower courts, noting that the respondents' consistent pursuit of the entire suit land demonstrated their intent. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the lower courts' findings were based on a correct appreciation of the evidence presented.
- Does a conditional statement in a plaint regarding the enforcement of a pre-emption right over part of the land negate the intent to claim the entire suit land?
- Can a High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision be overturned on the grounds of misreading or non-reading of evidence if the pleadings clearly support the lower court's findings?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of appellant's Civil Revision. The respondents' suit for pre-emption was dismissed and their appeal having been accepted the High Court declined to interfere with the appellate judgment in its Revisional jurisdiction.
2. ' Leave to appeal was granted to examine: whether it is "a case of misreading as well as non- reading" of evidence.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the averments made in the respondents' pleadings if read together will show as if they had not intended to enforce their right of pre- emption regarding the entire suit land. Therefore, the decree merited to be set aside. It is in this regard that he reiterated that it is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
4. We have gone through the plaint. There is, of course, a mention that in case the transaction of sale between the vendor and the vendee--the present appellant, fails in respect of a part of the suit land the controversy about which was probably then going on, the -plaintiff even then be willing to enforce his right of pre-emption regarding the remaining land. This rather shows the keen ness of the plaintiff to enforce his right in all events and at all costs. He had also categorically stated that even if the transaction does or does not fail, as stated above, he would definitely continue to enforce his right regarding the suit land.
5. ' All this is supported by the fact that although the respondents' suit had been decreed regarding the entire suit land, he has not come to this Court to seek reduction either of price or of area on account of what the learned counsel admitted the reduction of the area due to intervening events.
6. ' After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that it is neither a case of misreading nor non- reading of evidence. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.