Summary: Background:Ahmad Bakhsh, through his legal representatives (LRs), filed a civil suit against Ameer Ali Khan, contesting a sale.The trial court ruled in favor of Ahmad Bakhsh, but this decision was overturned by the High Court due to the failure to perform Talabs (a legal requirement).The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment.---Issues:Whether the Talabs were performed in accordance with the law.Whether the evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the performance of Talabs was credible.Whether the contradictions and discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony justified the High Court's decision.---Holding/Reasoning:The High Court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the performance of Talabs to be inconsistent and unreliable.The witness who testified about the Talabs, Khalid (PW-5), appeared for the first time after a significant delay and his account contradicted that of another witness, Hameedullah (PW-3).Other witnesses also provided conflicting details about the timing and manner of the Talabs.The High Court's decision to exclude the statements of these witnesses from consideration was deemed justified.Upon independent analysis, the Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion to be reasonable and decided not to overturn it.The appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Background:The appellant, Sultan, challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, in Civil Revisions bearing No.179 and 180 of 2011, whereby the court allowed the revisions filed by the respondent/vendee, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's preemptory suit.---Issues:Whether the appellant successfully proved the service of Talb-i-Ishhad (pre-emption notice) in accordance with the law.Whether the failure to prove the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad is fatal to the appellant's preemptory suit.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The appellant failed to produce evidence of the service or refusal of the Talb-i-Ishhad. The appellant's argument that the respondent admitted receipt of the notice was not substantiated by the evidence. Furthermore, the original notice was not produced as evidence.The court emphasized that proving the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad is essential for a preemptory suit. The appellant's failure to do so, despite relying on the respondent's admissions, renders the suit defective. The admission of notice receipt by the respondent does not confirm compliance with all legal requirements for the Talb-i-Ishhad. Therefore, the appellant's suit cannot succeed.The court reiterated that in a preemptory suit, each Talb must be proven in accordance with the law. The mere admission of notice receipt by the respondent does not fulfill the legal requirements for the Talb-i-Ishhad.As the appellant failed to establish the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the law, the court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment.Both Civil Appeals are dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) - Relevant for establishing the legal requirements for proving Talb-i-Ishhad in a preemptory suit.

Summary: Background:Ghulam Farid filed a pre-emption suit against Mst. Zohra Khatoon, seeking pre-emption of agricultural land purchased by Khatoon in Mouza Mankarai, District Haripur. The suit was based on Farid's allegation that Khatoon had purchased the land for a lesser amount than the actual sale consideration. The lower courts dismissed the suit, but the High Court set aside their judgments, prompting Khatoon to appeal.---Issues:Whether the pre-emptor complied with the procedural requirements of pre-emption, including the timely issuance of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad.Whether the pre-emptor's claim of the land being purchased for a lower price was substantiated.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The appellant's counsel argued that the pre-emptor failed to comply with the statutory requirement of immediately making Talb-i-Muwathibat and issuing notice of Talb-i-Ishhad within two weeks of learning about the sale.The respondent's claim of learning about the sale on a later date was contradicted by evidence, indicating that the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was sent beyond the statutory period.The respondent's assertion regarding the sale price of the land was not substantiated and was deemed an attempt to gain an advantage through false statements.The court invoked Section 33 of the Act, emphasizing the requirement of honesty and truthfulness in dealings.The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the pre-emption suit filed by the respondent was dismissed.No costs were awarded.---Citations/Precedents:Bashir Ahmed v Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762)Khan Afsar v Afsar Khan (2015 SCMR 311)Basharat Ali Khan v Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309)Allah Ditta v Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866)Pervaiz v Muhammad Nawaz (2006 SCMR 4)Muhammad Amir v Khan Bahadur (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 267)Subhanuddin v Pir Ghulam (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 69)

Summary: The key issue revolved around the deficiency in evidence concerning "Talbi-Ishhad," a legal term related to the preemption process. The petitioner failed to produce essential evidence, specifically the postman who delivered postal documents and the second attesting witness of Talbi-Ishhad. The judge noted that the respondents (defendants) in their written statement denied the assertion about the issuance and service of notice, and they raised a preliminary objection stating that no "Talabs" were made by the plaintiff as per legal provisions. The judge concluded that, in such circumstances, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the sending of notice through affirmative evidence, including the production and examination of the postman. Additionally, the judge mentioned that the second attesting witness of Talbi-Ishhad, Amjad Hussain, was not produced in the witness box, which is considered mandatory under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The judge concluded that the deficiency in evidence led by the plaintiff to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad was sufficient reason to dismiss the suit and appeal. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, and the judge asserts that the lower courts did not commit any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the case. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed.

Summary: Islamic law-------Pre-emption suit--- Talbs, performance of--- Requirements---Plaintiffs had failed to produce two witnesses of the occasion/event when they came to know that defendants had sold or they were about to sell their property and plaintiffs raised their right of pre-emption against the defendants---Plaintiffs were required to produce two witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad but they had not produced the second witness nor had mentioned second witness in their claim of pre-emption---Plaintiffs had failed to prove their right of pre-emption, in circumstances---Revision was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]

Summary: The key issue was the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, which was dispatched to the respondents but lacked the required acknowledgment due. The judge emphasized the mandatory nature of this requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.Despite this deficiency, the judge, in the interest of justice, heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner claimed that a receipt (Exh.PW5/1) with the alleged signatures of the recipient served as an acknowledgment. However, the judge scrutinized this receipt and found several flaws.The judge noted that the Postman (PW-5) retained the receipt in his personal custody, a violation of official protocol. Additionally, the receipt lacked the necessary stamp indicating it was an acknowledgment due. The judge concluded that the receipt could not attain the status of acknowledgment due and that the registry was likely ordinary, not with acknowledgment due.Moreover, the judge cited relevant portions from The Post Office Manual, emphasizing the proper procedures for sending registered articles and the need for authentic acknowledgments.In light of these findings, the judge dismissed the revision petition, stating it had no merit. The judgment concluded with thanks to the Post Master General for providing assistance.

Summary: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) ----Ss. 13, 3, and 32 Right of pre-emption—Proof of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad—Maintainability—Plaintiff sought pre-emption of land sold to defendants, alleging a superior right—Court examined whether the essential conditions of Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate declaration of intent) and Talb-i-Ishhad (formal notice) were fulfilled. Plaintiff failed to prove proper service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad—Evidence showed that notices were received by a third party (father of defendants) and not the defendants themselves—Mere dispatch of notices does not constitute compliance with S. 13 of the Act—Court held that service upon the vendees is mandatory for effective performance of Talb-i-Ishhad—Reliance placed on Dayam Khan v. Muslim Khan (2015 SCMR 222) and Munawar Hussain v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721). (b) Sale consideration Contradictory claims regarding sale price—Plaintiff alleged that the sale price mentioned in the mutation was inflated to defeat his pre-emption right—Court noted contradictions in plaintiff’s statements regarding the sale price, which undermined his credibility—Failure to substantiate allegations regarding the actual sale price disentitled the plaintiff from claiming the land under pre-emption. (c) Injunctions of Islam and credibility of pre-emptor ----S. 32 of Punjab Pre-emption Act Applicability of Shari’ah principles in pre-emption cases—Court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is regulated under Islamic injunctions, requiring a pre-emptor to maintain credibility and truthfulness—Plaintiff’s contradictory statements about the sale price disqualified him as a truthful witness—Reliance placed on Subhanuddin v. Pir Ghulam (PLD 2015 SC 69). (d) Revisional jurisdiction ----S. 115, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court in conflicting judgments—Preference is generally given to the judgment of the appellate court in cases of conflict, but this is not an inflexible rule—Where the appellate court misreads evidence or commits material irregularities, the High Court is empowered to set aside such judgments in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Disposition Civil revision allowed—Judgment and decree of the appellate court set aside—Trial court’s judgment dismissing the pre-emption suit restored—Plaintiff’s claim dismissed for failure to fulfill statutory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad and for lack of credibility. Cited Cases: Dayam Khan v. Muslim Khan (2015 SCMR 222) Munawar Hussain v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721) Subhanuddin v. Pir Ghulam (PLD 2015 SC 69)

Summary: The principles of Muhammadan Law of pre-emption, which is the original source of statutory law on the subject, set out equally high standard for making talb-i-muwathibat and talb-i-ishhad, as prescribed under the statutory law. Two talbs were not made by the respondents in the required manner of vigilance and promptness. The suit of pre-emption filed by the respondents is dismissed.

Summary: (a) Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991 ----S. 13---Talbs---Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad---Mandatory conditions---Right of pre-emption is strictissimi juris and must be exercised in strict compliance with statutory requirements---Plaintiff claimed superior right of pre-emption over land purchased by defendants via Mutation No.1333 dated 24.04.2007---Trial Court dismissed suit for failure to establish timely and lawful performance of Talbs; Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit---Held, Appellate Court erred in overlooking fatal legal defects in performance of both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad---Plaintiff failed to prove that immediate demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) was made on gaining knowledge of sale, as cross-examination revealed awareness only after suit filing---Possession was transferred at the time of sale, constituting public notice---No urgency or jumping demand made thereafter---Delay in making first demand was fatal to claim. Cited Cases: • Kashmali Khan v. Mst. Malala (2023 SCMR 1176) • Sher Ayaz Khan alias Sheraz Khan v. Gul Najeeb Khan (2025 SCMR 380) • Arshad Iqbal v. Muhammad Hayat (2017 YLR 2358) (b) Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991 ----S. 13(3)---Talb-i-Ishhad---Requirement to mention date and names of witnesses in plaint---Plaintiff must specifically plead and prove second demand within prescribed period with witness attestation---Held, plaint failed to disclose exact date of Talb-i-Ishhad or names of attesting witnesses---Notices claimed to be hand-written and originals not produced---Postman (PW-1) failed to confirm delivery to all defendants, including minors; no acknowledgment of refusal or endorsement on record---These omissions rendered Talb-i-Ishhad legally deficient and unproven. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Akram (2024 SCMR 692) • Ghafoor Khan v. Israr Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1545) • Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 2007 SC 302) • Mir Muhammad Khan v. Haider (PLD 2020 SC 233) • Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan (2015 SCMR 311) • Munawar Hussain v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721) (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 115---Revision---Interference with appellate judgment reversing fact-based dismissal by Trial Court---Scope---Appellate Court failed to appreciate clear legal deficiencies in proof of Talbs---Held, revisional interference warranted where essential legal formalities of pre-emption were disregarded, leading to erroneous decree in favour of plaintiff---Impugned appellate judgment set aside, and suit for pre-emption dismissed. Disposition: Civil Revision allowed---Appellate Court’s judgment set aside---Trial Court’s dismissal of pre-emption suit restored---No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 ----Ss. 13(2), 13(3), 30—Talb-i-Muwathibat—Talb-i-Ishhad—Pre-emption suit dismissed for non-fulfillment of legal requirements—Plaintiff claimed to have made Talb-i-Muwathibat upon receiving knowledge of sale, but evidence revealed that he had obtained Jamabandi copy on 12.12.2013, proving earlier knowledge—Failure to make immediate demand rendered pre-emption claim invalid—Talb-i-Ishhad also found deficient as notice was not personally served on vendee—Postman admitted that registered post was left at a general store and not delivered directly—Plaintiff failed to prove compliance with mandatory formalities of Sections 13(2) & 13(3) of the Act—Held, non-compliance with pre-emptive demand requirements is fatal to the case—Reliance placed on Allah Ditta v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) and Muhammad Zahid v. Dr. Muhammad Ali (PLJ 2014 SC 787). (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 30—Pre-emption claim—Time limitation for filing suit—Mutation of sale was registered on 11.12.2013 and attested on 26.12.2013—Plaintiff filed suit on 30.01.2014, claiming knowledge of sale on 09.01.2014—However, obtaining Jamabandi copy on 12.12.2013 established prior knowledge—Held, limitation period commenced from 12.12.2013, making Talb-i-Muwathibat delayed and invalid. (c) Evidence Act, 1872 ----Appreciation of evidence—Contradictory statements of witnesses—Plaintiff’s witness Ghulam Abbas (PW-1), who allegedly informed about the sale, failed to specify how he obtained knowledge—Postman Azhar Hussain (PW-6) initially stated that he personally delivered the notice but later admitted he never recognized the defendant nor visited his house—Failure to produce store owner who allegedly handed over the notice further weakened the case—Held, plaintiff failed to prove personal service of Talb-e-Ishhad. ---- (d) Disposition Civil revision dismissed. Lower appellate court rightly dismissed pre-emption suit due to failure in proving both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. No misreading or non-reading of evidence found.