2010 PLP 934 (MLD)

SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.

Petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption which was resisted by the respondents and dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhalwal on 9-12-1999. The appeal against the judgment and decree filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal on 29-3-2002.

2. The aforesaid judgments and decrees have been assailed through this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Moonda petitioner while appearing as P. W.1. during his cross-examination deposed that the vendor of suit-land was his real paternal nephew. Their lands and deras fell adjacent. At the time of sale, the suit-land was in cultivating possession of the vendor. He repelled the suggestion that possession of the suit-land was transferred to the respondents (vendees). He volunteered and further submitted that possession of the suit-land was delivered to respondents on 15-6-1997 in the morning. The respondents had obtained possession by ploughing the land and they had come to know about the sale at the said time. He further stated that Murtaza P.W. was his son who had told him that the suit-land had been sold about 3 months back. He did not tell him the date. 4/5 months after that Ghulam Ali also arrived there. 3-A. Case of the petitioner in the plaint was that he had come to know about the sale on 16-6-1997 on Monday at 10 a.m. when he was sitting alone in his Baithak. Murtaza had come to him and told him that suit land had been sold by the respondent and he made Talb-i-Muwatihbat at once.

4. The fact thus alleged in para.3 of the plaint that he had come to know about the sale on 16-6-1997; and his specified admission while appearing as P.W.1 that he had come to know about the sale on 15-6-1997 when possession had been taken over by respondents, became fatal for his case being mutually contradictory.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above statement of P. W .1. who was aged about 80 years and had no orientation in this regard was to be considered as a whole. It could not be taken in isolation. That when considered as a whole, it was sufficiently proved that the petitioner came to know about the sale on 16-6-1997. The learned Courts below therefore, had failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with established norms, therefore, judgments of both the Courts were liable to be set aside. It was further contended that there were contradictions in statements of the P.Ws. which were to be ignored. Reliance was placed on authorities reported in 1986 SC 2958 (Budhu v. Liaqat Hussain and 18 others), PLD 1994 SC 162 (Saheb Khan through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Pannah), PLD 2002 Peshawar 21 (Haji Din Muhammad v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and others) and 2006 SCMR 1410 (Hayat Muhammad v. Mazhar Hussain). 5-A The right of pre-emption is a very weak right. If the law required to do a certain thing in a particular manner it must have been done in accordance with the prescribed provisions of law. Pre-emption Act required that Talb-i-Muwatihbat should be made through a jumping demand and within 15 days of the same Talb-i-Ishhad should be made. If a pre-emptor failed to make Talbs in accordance with the aforesaid requirements, his pre-emption. right was deemed to have been extinguished.

6. There is a lot of difference between making of Talb-e-Muathibat on 15-6-1997 and on 16-6-1997 i.e. as admitted during cross-examination. I do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that this lapse occurred due to slip of tongue. This admission was extracted by the respondents through cross-examination. This contradiction could not be taken as a minor discrepancy. It was something material and substantial. The above referred case-law, therefore, provides no help to the petitioner. This petition is found to be without any force, -hence, is dismissed. H.B.T./M-557/L Petition dismissed.