Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Waris S — 2025 MLD 1638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Nawaz VS Muhammad Waris S. 13(3)---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Right of pre-emption---Talb-i-Ishhad, notice of---Proof---Names of witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad notice not mentioned in the plaint---Fatal defect---Petitioner/vendee was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court whereby suit was decreed in favour of respondent/pre-emptor---Validity---Record reflected that no date of Talb-i-Ishhad was mentioned in the plaint, which made it uncertain whether the same was made within two weeks as required under S.13(3) of the Act---Non-mentioning of exact time of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint was fatal for the cause of the respondent/plaintiff---As borne out from the evidence, the fulfillment of condition of Talb-i-Ishhad, by way of service of notices, got sketchy, inter-alia, in terms of statement made by postman---Talb-i-Ishhad was to be established by way of a solid piece of evidence led by the respondent/plaintiff---Plaint did not disclose any details regarding Talb-i-Ishhad with respect to its performance, which was fatal to the case of the respondent/plaintiff---Admittedly, the petitioners/defendants were minors---Statement of post man did not mention as to where the service was made on the said minors, or it was made on anyone else on their behalf, nor was there any endorsement of refusal on the envelope or the acknowledgment due---Respondent/plaintiff admitted that the original notices were not sent---According to the statements of witnesses, the notices were written by hand---Talb-i-Ishhad or demand by establishing evidence means calling of two witnesses by pre-emptor to attest his making of the first demand/ Talb-i-Muwathibat in order to strengthen his claim of pre-emption---Mandatory upon the pre-emptor to have stated the names of witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint and then prove their attestation by producing them in the Court---From the perusal of the plaint, it appeared that no such disclosure had been made by the respondent/plaintiff---Said omission was again fatal to the claim of the respondent/plaintiff---Respondent/plaintiff (pre-emptor) had failed to prove performance of the essential conditions attached to the exercise of right of pre-emption---As a result, claim of pre-emption could not hold field for not having qualified the mandate of law under the Act, in terms of making of Talbs---Consequently, civil revision was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Waris S — 2025 MLD 1638 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD