ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner calls-in-question concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge, Jand, District Attock on 1.4.2010 and 13.7.2012 respectively whereby suit filed by the petitioner for pre-emption, has been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present civil revision is that Banaras Khan sold his land measuring 2 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Khara Nos. 1372, 2608 and 2620 ait mouza Domal, Tehsil Jand District Attock to Fazal Dad and Manzoor Ahmed, defendants/respondents through mutation No. 4351, dated 23.7.2005 in lieu of Rs. 60,000/- and Anayat-ur-Rehman, plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit on 22.9.2005 for possession through preemption contending therein that he has a superior right to purchase the land being khewatdar and the purchase value of the land is not more than Rs. 20,000/- but the defendants in order to avoid pre-emption got purchase value of land at Rs.
60,000/-.
3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the right of the defendants and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned Trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of talabs? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant? OPP
(3) Whether ostensible sale price of Rs. 60,000/- was actually paid? OPP
(4) If above issue is not proved, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale?
OP Parties
(5) Relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that judgments of the Courts below have suffered from material irregularities and illegalities resulting into injustice while passing the impugned orders; that the learned Trial Court in its findings on issue No. 1 declared that petitioner has proved Talb-i- Muwathibat while the learned Appellate Court has reversed those findings and in this way, the judgments are at variance; the notice of Talb-e-Ishad was received, therefore, no need to produce the postman; that when the Trial Court declared that the petitioner has a superior right of pre- emption; that the petitioner was non-suited on technical ground and has been caused irreparable loss and that petitioner proved all requirements of talabs narrated in the Preemption Law. Lastly he prays for setting aside the judgments of two Courts below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record attached with the revision petition.
6. The pre-emption law is very feeble and requires strict proof.
A strict view has recently been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while granting leave in case reported as Ch. Muhammad Siddique and another Vs. Mst. Faiz Mai and others (PLD 2012 S.C. 211), wherein it is held that 'the custom of pre-emption right has to be specifically pleaded in the plaint and then denied in the written statement' which is not the situation in the instant case.
Even otherwise the postman was required to be produced as the Talb-e-Ishad was denied by the respondents which is by itself fatal to the case of the petitioner as held in Sher Ahmad Vs. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCM R 762). This civil revision is, therefore, devoid of any force and the same is dismissed in limine.