Pakistan Case Law
2001 PLD Supreme Court 13

Rana MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs MUNIR AHMED and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 PLD Supreme Court 13
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1169 of 1999
Date2000-07-19
Judge(s)Abdur Rehman Khan, Mian Muhammad Ajmal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial Court, the Appellate Court, and the High Court dismissing his suit for possession through pre-emption due to the defective performance of 'Talab-e-Muwathibat'. The petitioner contended that the delay in making 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' was only four hours rather than two to three days, and therefore it should be condoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' must be made immediately within the very sitting or meeting where the prospective pre-emptor acquires knowledge of the sale intended to be pre-empted. The Court ruled that failure to make the talab in the prescribed manner is fatal to the pre-emption suit, irrespective of whether the delay is of one hour or one day, as any such delay is not condonable. Finding no merit in the petition against the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a delay of a few hours in making 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' condonable under pre-emption law?
  • Must 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' be made immediately in the same sitting or meeting where the prospective pre-emptor learns of the sale?
  • Does the failure to make 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' strictly in the prescribed manner render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
suit for pre-emptionTalab-e-Muwathibatdelay in talabconcurrent findingspre-emption lawleave to appealjumping demand

ORDER

ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Suit for possession through preemption filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court for his failure to make 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' in accordance with the mode prescribed under the law and that judgment was confirmed by the Appellate Court and also by the High Court in Revision through the impugned judgment dated 30- 4-1999. This petition has been moved to challenge the legality of unanimous judgments of all the Courts.

2. The learned Judge in the High Court although conscious of the limited scope of interference in Revision with the concurrent finding of the lower Courts still undertook the exercise of analysing the evidence as is clear from the following paragraph: "Though the learned Courts below have concurrently decided Issue No,2 (a pure question of fact) against the petitioner yet in order to satisfy myself, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the evidence available on the file and found that the finding of the learned Courts below on this issue has been recorded on a valid appreciation of law and facts.

I would like to refer to some relevant portion of statement of petitioner (P.W.1)." Thereafter he has referred to the relevant portions of evidence and has commented upon them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the delay in making 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' as held by the lower Courts but according to him the delay was hardly of four hours and not of 2-3 days, therefore, it was condonable. This argument is misconceived. The requirement of law is that 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' is to be made immediately in the sitting or meeting in which the prospective pre-emptor has come to know of the sale which he intends to pre-empt. Therefore, if a pre-emptor fails to make 'Talab-e-Muwathibat' in the prescribed manner then the suit is liable to be dismissed irrespective of the fact that he made such 'Talab' after one hour or one day of the sitting or meeting in which he had known about the sale. There is no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.

Cited by 30 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.