SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, J.---Muhammad Yagoob has by way of this constitutional petition called in question the judgment and decree dated 24-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Haripur (respondent No,3).
2. The breviate of the matter is that the petitioner filed a suit for the enforcement of his pre-emptive right with regard to the suit land through his attorney namely Abdul Latif. During the pendency of the suit an application was filed by the respondents for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the requisite Talbs being sine qua none for bringing a suit of pre-emption were not made in accordance with law as the same were made by the attorney who was having no power for making the said Talbs. The application of the respondents was rejected by the learned trial Court on 21-9-2002. The respondents felt aggrieved on the rejection of their application and filed a revision petition which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge-II, Haripur who after hearing the parties allowed the application of the respondents and set aside the order of the trial Court. Thus the suit of the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised and argued the contention that the judgment and decree of the learned Revisional Court is contrary to law and facts as section 14 of the N.-W.F.P., Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) gives ample powers to the attorney or for that matter to a guardian to make the demands where the pre-emptor himself is not capable of doing so.
4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner but do not find any force therein. We have avidly read the power of attorney. It does not contain any provision giving an authority to the attorney for making either Talb-i-Muwathibat or Talb-i-Ishhad. The said document on the basis of which the demands were made by the attorney is meant only for the management of the property which is in the ownership of the petitioner and to carry out the allied purposes of course which included the filing and defending the suits and other proceedings in the Court but such authority is restricted only to the property of the petitioner and not for the enforcement of any pre-emptive rights, The power of attorney has to be construed strictly in accordance with its contents and nothing can be read into it which it does not expressly provide.
Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be deduced that the power of attorney relied upon by Abdul Latif would include into its fold the functions of making the requisite Talbs in terms of section 13 of the N.W.F.P., Pre-emption Act. It is also settled law that if the Talbs are not made in accordance with the requiremehts of section 13 referred above it would entail the necessary consequences of extinguishment of rights of the pre-emptor. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the same is based on sound reasons and correct appreciation of legal position.
5. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.