Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 13(3),13

(a)    Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)-------S. 13 (3)---Notice of Talb-i-Ishhad---Attesting witness---Duty---Attesting witness has to testify about contents and has to depose as witness of such document---Witness to whom a document is not at all recited, his statement cannot be considered as that of a witness "attesting" the notice in conformity with provision of S. 13(3) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.(b)    Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)-------S. 13---Suit for recovery of possession through pre-emption--- Talbs not proved-- Effect--- Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same---Validity---When Talbs as per law were not proved through cogent and convincing evidence, then other factors like superior right of pre-emption and market rate or sale price became subsidiary and irrelevant and Courts were not to enter into such aspects which would be an exercise in futility---Respondent / plaintiff failed to prove both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-iIshadin accordance with law---High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and resultantly restored that of Trial Court---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.Date of hearing: 7th December, 2022.JUDGMENTFAZAL SUBHAN, J.---Instant revision petition is filed by petitioner Miandad Khan, wherein, he challenged judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Mansehra, whereby, Civil Appeal No. 17/13 of 2011, filed against the judgment and decree passed byCivil Judge-XII, Mansehra dated: 31.01.2011 was accepted and judgment and decree of learned trial Court was set-aside and suit of plaintiff/respondent was decreed.2.    Relevant facts of the case, precisely, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of property, fully described in the heading of plaint, situated at Mouza Data, Tehsil and District, Mansehra, contending that petitioner/ defendant purchased suit property from Muhammad Ismael in consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- but entered an inflated…