MUHAMMAD EHSAN vs AMANATULLAH
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ehsan, challenging a sale transaction. The core legal question concerned the validity of the petitioner's performance of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' (the immediate demand for pre-emption), specifically whether the evidence presented regarding the time and place of this demand was consistent and sufficient. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the evidence unsatisfactory, a decision subsequently affirmed by the District Judge and the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' concurrent findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The Court emphasized that serious contradictions in witness testimony regarding the knowledge of the sale and the making of the 'Talb' justified the dismissal of the suit. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when they are based on a proper evaluation of evidence and free from material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a contradiction in witness testimony regarding the time and place of making a pre-emption demand invalidate the claim?
' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 13-7-1998, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.2106 of 1997.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Ehasan petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption assailing the sale of 5 Kanals and 15 Marlas purchased by Amanatullah respondent through Mutation No.13117 dated 14-6-1993. The suit was resisted by the respondent taking an objection in the written statement that the petitioner had not made the valid Talb according ,to law. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the sale transaction through Rab Nawaz P.W.2 and Fateh Khan P.W.3, while he was in "Khacha". In the cross-examination he admitted that he came to know of the fact of sale when he was sitting in a Hotel of Khaliq Dad. Both of the above-named witnesses also stated that the petitioner came to know of the impugned transaction while sitting in the hotel of Khaliq Dad.
3. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties and framing the necessary issues dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-9-1996. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali, vide judgment dated 7-11-1997.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.2106 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Operative part of the judgment runs as under: "I myself perused the record, judgments of both the Courts below and find unsatisfactory evidence on the first Talb i.e. Talb-iMuwathibat. I do not find any material irregularity or error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below in giving concurrent findings on issue No.3. Consequently, this revision petition is without any force and is dismissed. No order as to costs."
' Hence, this petition.
5. It is contended that evidence about "Talab-e-Mawathibat" has been grossly misappreciated.
6. The learned Court below had held that there were serious contradictions about the knowledge of the sale in question and the making of "Talab". There is serious inconsistency between the statements of the witnesses about the time and place of making the "Talab". The conclusions A drawn by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed being without any substance.
Cited by 1 case
- FIAZ-UR-REHMAN vs ZAFAR IQBAL 2003 YLR 2300