1987 PLP 744 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 44‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100,

0. XIII, R. 2, S. 151 &

0. XLI, R.27‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Application of plaintiff‑respondent for permission to produce copy of Jamabandi to establish his superior right of pre‑emption rejected by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court‑‑High Court, in second appeal, allowing plaintiff‑respondent to produce such copy of Jamabandi in evidence to prove his qualification being an owner in the estate‑‑High Court in impugned judgment observing that authenticity and genuineness of certified copy of Jamabandi, being part of record‑of‑rights, was beyond dispute and that it was not understandable why the Trial Court and Appellate Court below had declined to allow its reception in evidence‑‑Impugned order, held, was not exceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused‑‑Petitioner, could, however, rebut the evidence produced in said behalf by any cogent evidence and could also challenge the authenticity of Jambandi. Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1987. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ Plaintiffs /respondents Khurshid Ahmad and Mst. Hamida Bibi filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption regarding land measuring 501 Kanals and 19 Marlas situate in village Bahar, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura which the petitioners claimed to have purchased vide Mutation No. 140 attested on 30‑12‑1975. Before the closure of evidence of the parties, plaintiff /respondent No.1 moved an application under Order AIII, Rule 2 read with section 151, C.P. C. for permission to produce copy of Jambandi. The learned trial Court rejected this application vide order dated 8‑5‑1979. He then filed an appeal which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge per order dated 30‑9‑1979. This order was not challenged by the plaintiffs/ respondents in any higher forum. Consequently the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs/ respondents then filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, alongwith an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 for permission to produce copy of Jamabandi to enable them to establish that they were the owners in the estate, and, therefore, had superior right of pre‑emption. This application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. Regular second appeal was then filed in the High Court which is still pending and a learned single Judge, vide his impugned order dated 20‑10‑1986, allowed the plaintiff /respondent to produce in evidence, in second appeal, copy of Jamabandi to prove his qualification being an owner in the estate.

2. Leave is now sought by the petitioners on the grounds that no good cause has been shown by the plaintiff /respondent for permission to produce copy of Jamabandi under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C.; that the cause shown in the application under the aforesaid order, speaks of gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff /respondent; and that valuable right had accrued to the vendee and no premium can be allowed on the gross negligence of a pre‑emptor.

3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment wherein the learned High Court Judge has observed that the authenticity and genuineness of the certified copy of Jamabandi, which was part of the record of rights duly prepared according to law by the Government officials, and which the appellant (respondent herein) wanted to produce to establish his superior right of pre‑emption was beyond dispute; and that it is not understandable why the learned trial and the appellate Court below declined to allow its reception in evidence. We are of the view that the impugned order is not exceptionable. However, the petitioner can rebut the evidence produced in this behalf by any cogent evidence; and can also challenge the authenticity of the document (Jamabandi), and shall be entitled to produce evidence in rebuttal. With this observation this petition is dismissed. S. Q. /I‑3/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.