MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in concluding that the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat (the immediate demand for pre-emption) had been duly satisfied. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the plaintiffs had successfully established the service of a written notice upon the defendant, supported by evidence from the scribe of the notice and the registered post acknowledgement receipt. Finding no legal error in the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the fulfillment of the statutory requirements for pre-emption, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming that where the essential procedural requirements of pre-emption, specifically the making of the Talb-i-Muwathibat, are proven by evidence, the findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed.
- Does the service of a written notice via registered post satisfy the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat in a pre-emption suit?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the fulfillment of pre-emption requirements?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 8-10-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby the revision petition directed against judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed in limine.
2. The only point urged in support of the petition is that learned Courts below have erred in recording the conclusion that, Talb-i-Muwathibat as contemplated by law had been duly made.
This question has been dealt with by learned Courts below in detail. Learned Judge of the High Court, in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, held that the plaintiffs had served the defendant/petitioner with a written notice dated 24-11-1992 (Exh. P./W.1/1) as per statement of Siraj Hussain P. W,1, the scribe of notice. The written notice was sent by registered post/Acknowledgement Due (Exh.P.W.1/2) All necessary particulars of defendant/petitioner were given on the A.D. And they tallied with his address as given in the revision petition filed before the High Court.
3. We find that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below is not contrary to law and see no reason to take a different view in take matter. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL KARIM vs ALAM SHER and another 2004 MLD 1782
- ABDUL KARIM vs ALAM SHER and another 2005 PLJ Lahore 531
- ABDUL KARIM vs ALAM SHER And Another 2003 YLR 487