Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 76

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

 Summary The High Court allowed the civil revision and dismissed the respondent's suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The Court held that the respondent failed to strictly prove the mandatory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The respondent failed to establish the complete chain of information regarding knowledge of the sale, did not specify the exact place where knowledge was received, delayed the declaration of pre-emption, failed to disclose the names of attesting witnesses to Talb-i-Ishhad, and relied upon inadmissible secondary evidence. The Court further held that concurrent findings of the courts below suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside and the pre-emption suit was dismissed. Tagline Strict compliance with mandatory Talbs is indispensable for enforcing the weak right of pre-emption; any doubt benefits the vendee. ORDER; Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, J. Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the instant Civil Revision as well as connected Civil Revision No. 499 of 2009, as both matters arise out of the same judgment and decree, involve the same parties, and raise common questions of law and fact. However, for the sake of convenience, reference shall be made to the facts and record of the instant Civil Revision. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. In the first round, the matter travelled up to the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which, vide order dated 16.02.2026, remanded the case to this Court for decision of the Civil Revision on merits afresh. Through the instant Civil Revision, the petitioners have assailed the judgments and decrees dated 15.06.2007 and 18.08.2009 passed by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court, respectively. Through connected Civil Revision No. 499 of 2009, the respondent has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that while the learned Appellate Court maintained the decree…