ABDUL AZIZ vs AHMED BAKHSH and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition regarding a pre-emption suit. The original suit for possession of land, based on the right of pre-emption, was filed by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but upon appeal, the case was remanded to determine whether the requirements of Talb-e-Mawasibat and Talb-e-Ishahad had been satisfied. Following the remand, the trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had failed to fulfill these essential requirements. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the evidence on record sufficiently established that the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of Talb-e-Ishahad, thereby entitling him to successfully pre-empt the sale. The core legal question centers on the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the performance of Talb-e-Ishahad in the context of a pre-emption claim.
- Does the evidence on record sufficiently establish the fulfillment of the requirement of Talb-e-Ishahad to entitle a plaintiff to pre-empt a sale?
- What are the necessary evidentiary requirements for Talb-e-Ishahad in a pre-emption suit?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Abdul Aziz, petitioner herein seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1992, passed by the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), . Whereby his Revision Petition No,34-D/1992, was dismissed.
2. Malik Muhammad Yar predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner instituted suit on 3-9-1986, for possession of the suit land in exercise of his right of pre-emption on the ground that he was joint owner of the Khata as well as a sharer in the water channel. The suit was declared by the learned trial Court on 7-3-1988 subject to payment of Rs,13,775 on or before 15-4-1988. On appeal filed by the respondents the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside on 6-11- 1988, and the case was remanded by the learned Additional District Judge, for trial, after framing issue No,6-A, to the following effect:-- "Whether the allegation contained in paras. 5 and 6 do not satisfy the requirement of Talb-e- Mawasibat and Talb-e-Ishahad and if so where these were made?"
' The learned Civil Judge seized of the case vide judgment dated 15-3-1989, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to fulfil the requirement of Talb-e-Mawasibat and Talb-e- Ishahad before institution of the suit. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner as well as Rana Abdul Rahim, Advocate on behalf of caveators/respondents, we grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether the petitioner on the evidence on record fulfilled the requirement of Talb-e-Ishahad so and to entitle him to successfully pre-empt the sale.
Cited by 1 case
- RASHID AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD through Legal Heirs 1995 CLC 1924