ABDUL SATTAR KHAN vs UMAR AYAR — 2026 SCMR 812 SUPREME-COURT

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

ABDUL SATTAR KHAN VS UMAR AYAR. S. 13(1)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Talb-i-Muwathibat---Burden of proof---Delay between the date of mutation and knowledge of sale---Informer not produced as witness---Effect---Production of supporting witnesses in place of informer---Legality. Concurrent findings on issue of Talb-i-Muwathbat---Suit was dismissed by the trial court, but was decreed by the Appellate court---Revisional court overturned the decision of the Appellate court while observing that Talb-i-Muwathibat remained unproved. Validity---Informer was never produced before the trial court throughout the proceedings without any explanation---Omission to produce the informer through whom knowledge of the sale was acquired was a significant shortcoming in the evidentiary chain. Requirement of Section 13 of the KPK Pre-emption Act, 1987, was not merely procedural but foundational for enforceability of the right of pre-emption, which mandated that the first demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) be made immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the sale and be proven through unimpeachable evidence. Appellant's version remained uncorroborated for the most critical point that how and when he came to know about the sale. Lapse of more than three months between the date of mutation and the claimed knowledge further undermined the promptness and credibility of the alleged Talb. Without evidence of informer, appellant's version regarding the time, place and manner of acquiring knowledge of sale remained uncorroborated. Supporting witnesses might have been present at the time of alleged declaration/demand, but in the absence of informer himself, requirement of immediacy and authenticity under Section 13 of the Act remained unproved. Non-production of informer may be fatal and may result in adverse inference being drawn against the pre-emptor. Appellate Court's findings on the issue of Talb-i-Muwathbat were a result of misreading of evidence, thus, liable to be set aside. High Court, in correcting that error, acted well within its powers under revisional jurisdiction. Revisional Court is fully empowered under Section 115, C.P.C., to do so where such findings are based on misreading, non-reading, or misinterpretation of evidence on record. Civil Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

ABDUL SATTAR KHAN vs UMAR AYAR — 2026 SCMR 812 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR