1994 PLP 1885 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Argument that law was not correctly laid down in case, could not be examined by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Saleem Mehmood Chehal for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 30th March, 1993. This revision petition arises out of a suit for possession through pre emption filed by the petitioner on 2'‑10‑1980 in respect of the land measuring 64 Kanals situated in Talwandi Ralali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala.

2. The superior right of pre‑emption was claimed on the ground of being co‑sharer/sharer in common amenities and contiguity. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 20‑7‑1988 on the ground that plaintiff/petitioner had failed to assert and prove the requisite Talabs. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 18‑1‑1993.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel has vehemently urged that the concept of Talab‑i‑Muwathibat (immediate declaration of intention to purchase the disputed property on learning about the sale transaction) is alien to the Injunctions of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet. He submits that the concept of Talab‑i‑Muwathibat has been based on one tradition of the Holy Prophet quoted in Hidaya but actually no such Hadith or tradition of the Holy Prophet exists in any of the recognized books of Ahadith. He next submits that in Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360)' reference has been made at page. 458 to two traditions Nos. 14405 and 14406 but the same are actually not the traditions of the Holy Prophet but views of some jurist. He~clarifies that in para 14406 (wrongly mentioned as Hadith) in Said Kamal's case, reliance has been placed on the saying of "Maamar" who was not even a jurist but merely a linguist. He adds that the points being canvassed by him with reference to Hidaya were considered in the case reported as Sundri Bai v. Ghulam Hussain (1982 CLC 2441), although, the Court held that immediate demand was essential for the enforcement of right of pre‑emption. The learned counsel appears to have done considerable research work and has quoted a large number of verses of the Holy Quran and traditions of the Holy Prophet in the revision petition. He particularly refers to three traditions of the Holy Prophet which read as under:‑‑

4. On the basis of above traditions, the learned counsel contends that if in the matter of performance of obligatory duties, the Holy Prophet had advised the followers to go slow how could he at all order them to show haste for enforcing the right of pre‑emption.

5. The law declared in Said Kamal's case was reaffirmed in a number of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is now well settled by precedents of the Federal Shariat Court and the ‑Hon'ble Supreme Court that making of Talab‑i‑Muwathibat and Talab‑i‑Ishhad is essential for enforcement of right of pre‑emption. The arguments raised by the petitioner's learned counsel that law was not correctly laid down cannot be examined by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C.

6. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition B which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./H‑125/L Revision petition dismissed.