Summary: It appears from the record that the first talab, i.e, talab-i-muwathibat, as alleged by the petitioners, to have been made by them in presence of the inhabitants of locality including Muhammad Iqbal son of petitioner No.1 when informer, namely, Akhtar Munir, allegedly told them about sale, but the intriguing aspect of the matter in hand is that neither the informer nor anyone else in whose presence talab-i-muwathibat was allegedly made was produced. It was not the petitioners case that only the petitioners, Iqbal and Akhtar Munir, were present when first talab was made but the plaint reveals that Petitioner No.1 after performing Hajj arrived to home where his friends and relatives were also assembled for Mubarakbadi of hajj, when the talab was allegedly made by them, so, in such circumstances, the factum of first talab could easily be proved by production of any one from the said witnesses in whose presence the talabs was made. Copies of notices reveal no separate notice was given to the vendees, similarly, notices allegedly sent to the respondents were not under the cover of registered acknowledgment due, for which the statement of PW 3 was of worth perusal, who in his cross examination deposed that both of the receipts No 535 and 536 were of simple registered post as none of the registered post was under the cover of acknowledgment due. It is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement, it was categorically denied that no notice was given to respondents No.2, despite the fact that the petitioners have not produced postman, which was one of the legal requirements of pre-emption. In such circumstances, when receipt of notices was denied, production of postman as petitioners witness was sine qua non.

Summary: In order to prove superior right, petitioner produced patwari halqa, who placed on file an extract from record of right/fard-jamabandi for the year 2011-12 of property bearing Khasra No.1706 (ExPW1/1), Khasra Nos. 1707, 1708, 1705, 1709 and 1710 (EXPW1/7, EXPW1/4), all these khasra numbers pertaining to Shamilat Akazai though by placing on file, petitioner wanted to prove that he is contiguous owner of the disputed property, however, as the list of proprietary body Fihrist-i-Malikan was not placed on file, which could determine the status of petitioner as to whether he is original owner(Asal malik) or Malik-e-Qabza, because mere placing on record the extract from jamabandi could not ipso facto be a conclusive proof of his ownership in the shamilat thus ExPW1/1, ExPW1/4 and EXPW1/7 are not helpful for petitioner. Likewise, aks shajra kishtwar ExPW1/2, without proof that in which khasra, petitioner was the owner has also not contributed any premium to him. Moreover, petitioner by placing on record ExPW5/4 (Iqrar Nama) dated 25.06.2000, (Iqrar Nama) dated 06.12.1997 ExPW5/5 and (Iqrar Nama) dated 02.03.2002 ExPW5/6 contended that vide ExPW 5/4 and ExPW5/6, he has become owner in property which is contiguous to the disputed property,however, neither marginal witness nor the vendors were produced to corroborate his version. There is solitary statement of petitioner, in which these documents were placed on record, which were objected by the respondent, so in the circumstances; petitioner was required to establish the case through wellfounded and credible evidence, which is lacking in his case. So, from nowhere petitioner could prove his preferential right of pre-emption.

Summary: The petitioner has filed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Kahror Pakka. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession through the right of pre-emption, claiming that he had a superior right to purchase a piece of land sold to the respondent. The trial court and the appellate court both dismissed the suit, and the petitioner seeks revision of this decision. The court examined the case and notes that the petitioner failed to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat, which is foundational for the right of pre-emption. It also highlighted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the petitioner's witnesses. Additionally, the court emphasized the mandatory nature of Talbs and the need for strict adherence to the procedural requirements. Regarding Talb-i-Ishhad, the court finds deficiencies in the notice sent by the petitioner, including its undated nature and lack of proper witnesses. The petitioner failed to produce the acknowledgment due card and the postman who delivered the notice. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there is no merit in the petitioner's arguments, and it is dismissed in limine.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending