Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KARIM KHAN VS Respondent: ALLAH DAD KHANHonorable Justice Jawaid Nawaz Khan GandapurHaji Saadullah Khan Miankhel
2000 C L C 1127
2000 C L C 1127
[Peshawar]
Before Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J , KARIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner.
versus
ALLAH DAD KHAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Revision No. 86 of 1999, decided on 9th December, 1999.
(a) North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987)‑‑‑ .i ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑ "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat"‑‑‑Meaning and scope‑‑‑ "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" is a demand made immediately after acquiring knowledge of sale ‑‑‑Pre‑emptor has to declare his intention to exercise his right of pre‑emption in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he comes to know about the sale transaction.
(b) North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑eruption Act (X of 1987)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit ‑‑‑Talb‑i‑Muwathibat, making of‑‑‑Delay in such Talb‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below ‑‑‑Pre‑emptor did not make such demand in the meeting where he came to know about the sale of the suit property, rather he went to Patwari Halqa to inquire about the sale and there the pre‑emptor made such demand‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where the pre‑emptor did not make any declaration regarding his intention to pre‑empt .the suit transaction in the presence of the person who first of all informed the pre‑emptor about the sale, pre‑emptor had lost his‑right of pre‑emption by delaying such pronouncement of his intention to pre‑empt the transaction‑‑‑Delay caused in making the requisite Talb‑i‑Muwathibat invalidated the right of pre‑emption ‑Both the Courts below committed no illegality or irregularity nor the evidence was misread or non‑read‑‑‑High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction refused to interfere in such order of both the Courts below‑‑ Revision was dismissed in. limine. Haji Saadullah Khan Miankhel for Petitioner.
ORDER
The only question that falls for determination, in this civil revision petition, is as to whether the petitioner/plaintiff had made "Talb‑i Muwathibat" strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act, 1987.
2. The two Courts below have already come to a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant‑plaintiff had not made "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act.
,3. A.perusal of the plaintiff's (Karim Khan) statement, copy appended with this petitioner, would show that he came to know about the sale in question through Shah Jehan Araen, that thereafter he went to the Patwari Halqa and asked him about the sale, that the Patwari Halqa also confirmed the factum of the transaction in question and that it was thereafter that he declared his intention to pre‑empt the, transaction. For the sake of convenience the opening part of his statement recorded by trial Court, on oath, as P.W.4, is reproduced below:
4. Under section 13 of the N.W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987, the pre‑1 emptor has to make Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" immediately after acquiring the knowledge of sale. It, therefore, means that he has to declare his intention to exercise his right of pre‑emption in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) is which he comes to know about the sale transaction.
5. In an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Civil Appeal No.560) titled Zargum Shah. v. Muhammad Yaqub Khan, it was held that "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" or the immediate demand is to be made, thus, on receipt of the information.
6. According to his own admission the plaintiff was informed about the sale in question by Shah Jehan. He did not make any declaration regarding his intention to pre‑empt the suit transaction in the presence of said Shah Jehan and thereby lost his right of pre‑emption by delaying pronouncement of his intention to pre‑empt the transaction in question. Needless to mention that the delay caused in making the requisite "Talb‑i‑Muwathibat" invalidates E the right of pre‑emption.
7. In any opinion the two Courts below have, therefore, committed no illegality or irregularity nor have they misread or non‑read the evidence. Accordingly there is no need for this Court to interfere with their verdict in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction this revision petition is without any substance and is dismissed in‑ limine
Q.M.H./M.A.K./24/P Revision dismissed.