Summary: (a) Pre-Emption – Compliance with Mandatory Talbs ---- Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991, S. 13 – Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad – Timely performance mandatory – Failure to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the sale renders the right of pre-emption extinguished – Mere assertion of lack of knowledge of a sale transaction does not suffice if the circumstances suggest that the pre-emptor should have known about it – Talb-i-Ishhad must be made within two weeks of Talb-i-Muwathibat, and notice must be duly served on the vendee – Delay in performing Talbs invalidates the pre-emption claim. Cited Cases: • Gulzar Begum v. Mst. Sairah Bibi (1972 SCMR 251) • Muhammad Bashir v. Ghulam Rasool (2003 SCMR 774) (b) Evidence Law – Proof of Service of Talb-i-Ishhad ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 – General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 27 – Presumption of service – Mere sending of a notice via registered post with acknowledgment due does not constitute sufficient proof of service – When the vendee denies receipt of notice under oath, the burden shifts to the pre-emptor to prove that service was duly effected – Postman or relevant postal authorities must be produced as witnesses to confirm service – Courts cannot presume service solely based on postal endorsements of “refusal” without corroborative evidence. Cited Cases: • Piridno v. Khurshid Begum (1989 SCMR 880) • Qaiser Zamani v. Rasheeda Begum (1985 CLC 596) • Khair Muhammad v. Akhtar Hussain (1983 CLC 302) (c) Pre-Emption – Rebuttal of Presumption of Service ---- Presumption rebutted by vendee’s testimony – A vendee appearing in court and denying receipt of Talb-i-Ishhad under oath effectively rebuts any presumption of service – In such cases, the pre-emptor must present independent proof, such as the testimony of the postman or verification of acknowledgment slips, to establish valid service – Failure to do so results in the dismissal of the pre-emption suit. Cited Cases: • Fateh Muhammad v. Gul Sher (2000 CLC 409) • Amroz Khan v. Arbab Muhammad Ghalib (PLD 1980 Pesh. 163) (d) Civil Procedure – High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction ---- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 115 – Revisional powers of High Court – High Court cannot set aside the well-reasoned findings of the Appellate Court unless a serious error of law or material irregularity is demonstrated – In the present case, the High Court failed to properly examine the issue of service of Talb-i-Ishhad and reversed the Appellate Court’s decision without due legal justification – Supreme Court reinstated the findings of the Appellate Court, dismissing the pre-emption suit. Cited Cases: • Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail v. Begum Hamida Saadat Ali (1968 SCMR 828) • Haji Lal Shah v. Abdul Khaliq (2004 SCMR 409) Disposition: Appeal allowed. High Court’s judgment set aside. Judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the pre-emption suit restored. The pre-emptor failed to prove valid service of Talb-i-Ishhad, thereby forfeiting the right of pre-emption.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XLI, R.31: ---Appellate Court’s duty---Issue-wise findings---Requirement of law---Petitioners contended that after remand, the Appellate Court failed to give issue-wise findings on various objections raised in the memo of appeal, thereby violating the remand order and provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C.---Held, that the Appellate Court is required to state the points for determination, give its decision thereon, and provide reasoning---If the court formulates points of controversy and provides reasoned findings, it fulfills the requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C.---Reliance placed on Umar Din v. Ghazanfar Ali (1991 SCMR 1816), Mst. Husna Bano v. Faiz Muhammad Magsi (2000 CLC 709), and Ghulam Hussain v. Muhammad Hussain (1986 CLC 770). (b) Pre-emption Laws – North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987), Ss.6 & 13: ---Right of pre-emption---Contiguous property---Superior right---Respondent/plaintiff claimed pre-emption right as Shafi Jar (owner of contiguous property) and Shafi Khalit (co-sharer in amenities)---Petitioners denied the respondent’s ownership of the contiguous property---Respondent/plaintiff, in his testimony, claimed ownership of land adjacent to the disputed property where he had constructed a petrol pump, and this claim was supported by witnesses---Petitioners’ own witness admitted in cross-examination that the site plan was prepared to negate contiguity---Failure of the petitioners to produce Parvaiz, the vendor, further weakened their case---Held, respondent/plaintiff proved his superior right of pre-emption, and petitioners failed to rebut the evidence. (c) Pre-emption Laws – Talb-e-Muwathibat & Talb-e-Ishhad: ---Pre-requisites for pre-emption---Petitioners argued that Talb-e-Muwathibat (immediate demand) and Talb-e-Ishhad (formal notice) were made before the actual sale---Held, that respondent/plaintiff learned of the sale on 27-4-1997, made Talb-e-Muwathibat immediately, and sent Jirgas for amicable resolution before sending Talb-e-Ishhad on 7-5-1997---Petitioners failed to reply to the Talb-e-Ishhad notice or deny the sale in their defense---Failure to rebut the demand and subsequent conduct of petitioners indicated that the sale had indeed taken place before the formal execution of the sale deed---Reliance placed on Muhammad Mai Khan v. Allah Yar Khan (2002 SCMR 235) and Mst. Kashmira Jan v. Mahtab Shah (PLD 1977 Peshawar 27). (d) Evidence – Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.VI, R.15: ---Verification of pleadings---Probative value of written statement---Petitioners relied on a written statement of Parvaiz (vendor), who did not testify in court---Held, verification on oath does not render a written statement substantive evidence unless the deponent is made available for cross-examination---Written statement alone cannot be used as evidence in pre-emption cases---Reliance placed on Muhammad Ishaq v. Erose Theatre (PLD 1977 SC 109), National Bank of Pakistan v. Alam Industries Ltd. (PLD 1992 Karachi 295), and Mst. Zareena v. Syeda Fatima Bi (PLD 1995 Karachi 388). (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S.115: ---Revisional jurisdiction---Findings of fact---Petitioners challenged concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts---Held, High Court in revision cannot interfere unless there is a jurisdictional defect, misreading, or non-reading of evidence---Appellate Court properly analyzed the evidence, complied with remand orders, and made reasoned findings---Petitioners failed to establish any jurisdictional irregularity warranting interference---Revisions dismissed. ---Disposition: Revision petitions dismissed. ---Cited Cases: (i) Muhammad Ishaq v. Erose Theatre (PLD 1977 SC 109) (ii) Mst. Khairun Nisa v. Malik Muhammad Ishaque (PLD 1972 SC 25) (iii) Muhammad Mai Khan v. Allah Yar Khan (2002 SCMR 235) (iv) National Bank of Pakistan v. Alam Industries Ltd. (PLD 1992 Karachi 295) (v) Mst. Zareena v. Syeda Fatima Bi (PLD 1995 Karachi 388)

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)