' A pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner on 21-3-1987 under the provisions of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act wherein `Talabs' in accord with Injunctions of Islam were not made, has been dismissed by the two learned Courts below on the basis of the law declared and enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360) and in Sardar Ali's case (PLD 1988 SC 287). As no decree could have been passed in favour of the pre- emptor in such a suit judgments and decrees passed by the two learned Courts below have been challenged by the plaintiff in this civil revision.
2. Qazi Khurshid Alam, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has argued that the suit could not have been dismissed as it was filed after 31-7-1986 and therefore the petitioner should have been allowed to amend the plaint to add the factum of making of Talabs.
3. Admittedly the suit has been filed not in accord with the provisions of the Islamic law but under the provisions of section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff was not even conscious about the filing of the suit in accord with the provisions of Islamic law of pre-emption. A pre-emptor cannot be allowed to add the factum of making of Talabs which on the face of it is a false plea inasmuch as on the day when the suit was filed, no pre-emptor had ever though of making of Talabs in accord with the injunctions of Islam and therefore asking the permission to amend the plaint so as to add the plea of Talabs therein will amount to allowing the false plea to be taken. This is not permissible in law. Even otherwise no such prayer has been made at any stage of the proceedings nor it can be made and granted in view of law laid down in case of Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din (PLD 1988 SC 701). In view of the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Rozi Khan and others v. Syed Karim Shah and others (1992 SCM R 445) and Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another (1992 SCM R"1886) the petitioner has no cause of action and the suit has rightly been dismissed by the two learned Courts below and no interference is called for in this civil revision. The same is therefore dismissed with costs.