MUHAMMAD ARIF vs MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner regarding the sale of land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by both the District Judge and the Lahore High Court in civil revision proceedings. The petitioner challenges these concurrent findings, primarily arguing that the pre-emptor's own testimony during cross-examination contradicted his claim regarding the date of knowledge of the sale. Specifically, the petitioner contends that the respondent admitted his presence at the time of the registration of the sale deed, thereby falsifying the averment that he only learned of the sale on a later date. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that the essential requirements of Talab-i-Muwathibat and Talab-i-Ishhad were not performed in accordance with the statutory timelines mandated by the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. Finding merit in the contention regarding the timing of the pre-emptor's knowledge and the subsequent performance of Talabs, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the suit was maintainable given the alleged violation of statutory requirements.
- Does an admission by a pre-emptor regarding his presence at the time of registration of a sale deed invalidate his claim of learning about the sale on a later date?
- Are the requirements of Talab-i-Muwathibat and Talab-i-Ishhad violated if the pre-emptor fails to perform them within the statutory period calculated from the date of actual knowledge of the sale?
- Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner against judgment dated 12-1-1995 of the Lahore High Court whereby Civil Revision No,3 of 1995 filed by him was dismissed.
2. On 8-1-1992, Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent, instituted suit against the petitioner pre-empting the sale of the suit land dated 15-9-1991 in the Civil Court at Chakwal. He claimed superior right of pre-emption being co-owner and having his land situated contiguous to the land in dispute. In the plaint, it was averred that he gained knowledge about the sale on 1-1-1992 and that he despatched notice to the petitioner on 6-1-1992. The suit was contested by the petitioner but the trial Court decreed the suit against the petitioner and the decree of the trial Court was maintained in appeal before the District Judge, Chakwal as also in revision before the High Court.
3. This petition is admittedly barred by 27 days. The petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground of illness. He has appended a medical certificate about the illness of his attorney explaining the delay in filing this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Advocate, in support of the application for condonation of delay as also the main petition seeking leave to appeal.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the pre-emptor in his cross-examination admitted his presence on the date of registration of the sale-deed dated 15-9-1991 while deposing on payment of registration incidental charges. The notice Exh.P.2 was despatched on 6-1-1992. ' The averment made in the plaint that he learnt about the sale on 1-1-1992 was belied on his own statement as he had the knowledge about the sale on the date of registration of the sale- deed. It was contended that both the Talabs namely Talab-i-Muwathibat and Talab-i-Ishhad were delayed in violation of the statutory requirement of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act IX of 1991.
In support of his submission he relied on Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another 1992 SCM R 1886 (1889-90).
6. Subject to limitation, leave to appeal is granted to consider the above-noted contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner.