Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Revision Section 115 CPC---- Section 2-D, 5 and 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 read with Section 54 Transfer of Property Act---- The pre-empted land was sold back to the original ex-owner before the institution of the suit for pre-emption, thus the suit is not maintainable ------ Non-performance of Talbs as required under Section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act is fatal for the pre-emptory cause.----- High Court under Section 115 CPC has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts of the Province and can call for the record of the lower fora and pass appropriate order as it deems fit.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Muhammad Ahsan (respondent No.1) filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Zahid Khan and others (petitioners/defendants) concerning land measuring 3 Kanal 8 Marla. The petitioners had purchased this land from Aslam through mutation No.1282 dated 16.04.2008. The respondent claimed to have been informed about the sale and announced his intention to pre-empt it on 23.04.2008. He sent a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad on 24.04.2008 and filed the suit on 07.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioners resold the land to Muhammad Aslam, the original owner, through mutation No.1290 dated 29.04.2008 and sanctioned on 07.05.2008. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal against this decision was dismissed by the appellate court. This led to the filing of a civil revision petition by the petitioners challenging these decisions. ----Issues: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: Whether the suit for pre-emption was maintainable after the land was resold to the original vendor. 2. Performance of Talbs: Whether the respondent performed the required Talbs as per law. 3. Service of Talb-i-Ishhad Notice: Whether the respondent properly served the Talb-i-Ishhad notice to the defendants. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC: Whether the High Court could intervene in the decisions of the lower courts under Section 115 CPC. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: 1. Maintainability of the Suit: The court held that since the suit land was resold to the original owner through mutation No.1290, the suit was not maintainable. Ruling: The suit was dismissed on the grounds that the cause of action had ceased with the resale of the land. ----2. Performance of Talbs: The respondent failed to prove the performance of Talbs as required by law. Significant contradictions and lack of credible evidence were noted in the testimonies of the witnesses. Ruling: Issue No.2 was decided against the respondent, as he did not substantiate the performance of the Talbs. ----3. Service of Talb-i-Ishhad Notice: The court found that the respondent did not properly serve the Talb-i-Ishhad notice. Key witnesses, including the purported postman, failed to substantiate the service of notice. Ruling: The issue of service was also decided against the respondent, emphasizing the non-production of crucial evidence and contradictions in witness statements. ----4. Jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC: The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction, noting substantial legal errors and procedural lapses by the lower courts. Ruling: The High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, stating they had acted with material irregularity. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khuibaib Vs. Ghulam Mustafa (2020 CLC 1039) Muhammad Nazeef Khan Vs. Gulbat Khan (2012 SCMR 235) Muhammad Hashim Vs. Sona Khan (2015 CLC 223) Muhammad Mansha Vs. Muhammad Nawaz (2014 MLD 1346) Allah Ditta Vs. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) Sardar Muhammad Vs. Taj Muhammad (2023 SCMR 1113) Munawar Hussain Vs. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721) Muhammad Riaz Vs. Muhammad Ramzan (2023 SCMR 1305) Bashir Ahmed Vs. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762) Sughran Bibi Vs. Mst. Aziz Begum (1996 SCMR 137) Jehangir Vs. Mst. Shams Sultana (2022 SCMR 309) Hafeez Ahmad Vs. Civil Judge, Lahore (PLD 2012 SC 400) Naseem Ahmad Vs. Air Botswana (1993 SCMR 647)