1990 PLP 1497 (CLC)

This revision petition calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 16‑2‑1.980, of Mr. Maqsood Ahmad, Civil Judge, Jampur, whereby he decreed the pre‑emption suit of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/petitioner on the payment of Rs. 9375 as pre‑emption money, as also the judgment and decree, dated 21‑7‑1980, whereby Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Kamboh, Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, affirming the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos.6, 7 and 8 dismissed the appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner challenges the findings of the Courts below on issues Nos.7 and

8. He submits that the trial Court misreading the evidence came to an erroneous conclusion that the market value of the suit land was Rs.9,375 and decreed the suit after ignoring the proved payment of Rs.13,000 before the Sub‑Registrar at the time of registration of the sale‑deed which should have been given preference over the market value, and the learned appellate Court, without applying proper, law declared by the superior .Courts wrongly affirmed the findings of the trial Court on these issues. He quotes Pirla etc. v. Noora etc. (P.L.D. 1976 Lahore 6) and Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas (1981 S C M R 701), in support of the above contention.

3. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Hameed Ahmed Malik Advocate, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, has not turned up despite having notice of revision petition for its today's date of hearing, nor he has sent any request for adjournment and it is being heard ex parte.

4. The trial Court had misread the contents of sale mutation (Ex. P4) inasmuch as the price for 97 kanals 17 marlas entered therein was Rs. 5000 and not Rs.9,375 as read by him. Similarly he thought that the area of the suit land was 97 kanals 17 marlas but in fact it was 186 kanals 13 marlas. The learned Additional District Judge did notice this mistake in the judgment of the trial Court but did not appreciate the real legal position. It is obvious from the endorsement of the Sub‑Registrar on the sale‑deed, of the suit land (Ex.Pl) that Rs.13,000 were paid by the vendee to the vendor in his presence: This endorsement clearly proved the payment of the entire sale price of the suit land and consequently issues No.7 should have been answered in affirmative, without feeling the necessity of going over to the question of its market value as embodied in issue No.8. Both the Courts below, therefore, erred in recording their findings on issues Nos.7 and

8. The law laid down in Pirla, etc. v. Noora, etc. (P L D 1976 ~I Lahore 6) and Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas (1981 S C M R 701) is very clear on the point and has binding effect. The question of market value‑ of the land can' only be gone into if the vendee fails to prove the payment of sale price unless the sale price so paid before the Sub‑Registrar or otherwise is abnormally high, giving an outright impression of its fictitiousness which was not the position in the instant case.

5. The revision petition is, therefore; accepted, the findings of the Courts below on issue No.7 are set aside and it is answered in affirmative and consequently the impugned judgments and decrees are modified to the extent that the plaintiff/respondent is granted decree for possession by pre‑emption of the suit land against the defendant/petitioner on the payment of Rs.13,000 as pre emptive money which, inclusiv6 of the pre‑emption money already paid, he shall deposit for his opponent within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which his suit shall stand dismissed.

6. Since the revision has been heard and disposed of ex parte, the plaintiff/respondent should be informed of this judgment, by sending its copy to him by registered post or by delivering it to his counsel and obtaining .his acknowledgment. A.A./A‑965/1. Revision accepted