MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs GHULAM AKBAR and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a pre-emption suit originally filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The suit was dismissed for failure to make the requisite Talabs (demands), a decision subsequently upheld in appeal and revision. Following the promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, the petitioner sought restoration of the suit under Section 35(2) of the new Act, which was rejected by the Civil Judge, with subsequent appeals and revisions also being dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his counsel in the Trial Court was under a bona fide misconception that Talabs were not required, and that he should not be penalized for his counsel's error. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting the lack of evidentiary support, such as an affidavit or certificate from the counsel, to substantiate the plea. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was rightly dismissed for want of Talabs in line with established precedent, and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a pre-emption suit filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 be maintained or restored if the requirement of Talabs was not satisfied?
- Can a party escape the consequences of failing to make Talabs in a pre-emption suit by pleading a bona fide misconception of law by their counsel without supporting evidence?
- Is an affidavit or certificate from the concerned advocate necessary to substantiate a plea that the advocate was laboring under a misconception of law?
- Section 35(2), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
- Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 16-10-1994 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief are that the suit instituted by the petitioner on 10-4-1989 for possession by pre- emption of the suit land was dismissed on 2-1-1989 for want of Talabs. Same was the fate of the appeal and the revision field by him. On the promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the petitioner sought restoration of the suit through an application under section 35(2) of the said Act.
It was rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 18-7-1993. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 10-2-1994 for want of jurisdiction. Revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 26-10-1994.
3. The petitioner submitted that the counsel engaged by him in the Trial Court was bona fide of the view that the requirement of Talabs was not necessary, therefore, he cannot be penalised for the act of his Advocate. We are not impressed by the submission. Admittedly, the suit was filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The requirement of Talabs having not been satisfied, the suit was rightly dismissed in view of Said Kamal v. N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1986 SC 360).
4. As to the contention of the petitioner that the learned counsel engaged by him in the Trial Court was labouring under a misconception regarding the requirement of Talabs, there is no material on record in the form of an affidavit/certificate from the learned counsel to substantiate this plea.
' Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.