Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4862 2025 SLD 4862 = 2025 LHC 5954
Lahore High Court
CIVIL REVISION NO.104-D of 2015
PRESENT; (MIRZA VIQAS RAUF) JUDGE
Date of hearing: 30.09.2025 Applicant by: Sheikh Zamir Hussain, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Junaid Iftikhar Mirza, Advocate.

MUHAMMAD IJAZ

VERSUS

SULEMAN ASGHAR (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

Tag Line: The following points are discussed in this revision application :- i. Whether non-appearance of the pre-emptor in the witness box was fatal to his right of pre-emption or not? ii. The pre-emptor and purchaser are real brothers, so in such situation Talb-i-Muwathibat is not proved. iii. Non-mentioning of specific portion of house in the plaint by the pre-emptor when he was received information about sale is fatal. iv. Effect of non-production of postman. v. Evidence record by local commission.


1. Background Facts

  • Pre-emptor (Suleman Asghar) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding land purchased by the applicant via Mutation No. 694 dated 05-07-2007 for Rs. 300,000/-.
  • Pre-emptor alleged he came to know of sale on 20-10-2007 at 10:00 am while at home with witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3.
  • He claimed to have duly performed Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad under Sections 13 & 14 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.

Trial Court (18-01-2011)

  • Applicant was proceeded ex parte.
  • Suit dismissed.

Appellate Court (24-12-2014)

  • Appeal allowed; suit decreed.

Civil Revision

  • Applicant challenged the appellate judgment.

2. Issues Considered

  • Whether non-appearance of the pre-emptor in the witness box is fatal?
  • Whether Talb-i-Muwathibat was validly proved?
  • Whether Talb-i-Ishhad was proved in accordance with law?
  • Whether recording of evidence through local commission/reader was legal?
  • Whether the appellate court misread or ignored material evidence?

3. Key Legal Findings

A. Non-Appearance of the Pre-emptor — Fatal to the Case

  • The right of pre-emption is a personal right.
  • Talb-i-Muwathibat must be personally proved by the pre-emptor unless a valid disability exists (minority, illness, etc.).
  • Pre-emptor did not appear and gave no reason for non-appearance.

Law Applied

  • Section 14, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 – Agent may make demands only when pre-emptor is “unable”.
  • Article 129(g), QSO 1984 – Adverse inference for withholding best evidence.

Case Law

  • Dilshad Begum v. Nisar Akhtar (2012 SCMR 1106)
  • Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq (2007 SCMR 957)
  • Hassan Bano v. Wali-ur-Rehman (2007 SCMR 1344)
  • Lalan Bibi (2007 SCMR 1193)

Conclusion: Non-appearance vitiated the entire pre-emption claim.

B. Talb-i-Muwathibat Not Proved

  • Pre-emptor alleged knowledge on 20-10-2007 in his house.
  • Being real brother of vendee, it is highly improbable he was unaware earlier.
  • No specific portion of the house mentioned — vague and insufficient.

Law

  • Section 13(1), Punjab Pre-emption Act: immediate demand (“jumping demand”) upon knowledge.

Case Law

  • Arshad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hayat (2017 YLR 2358) — improbable knowledge fatal.
  • Allah Ditta v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) — exact place must be specified.
  • Conclusion: Talb-i-Muwathibat not validly proved.

C. Talb-i-Ishhad Not Proved

Pre-emptor had to prove:

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register