1994 PLP 502 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Ple~Lof misreading and non‑reading of evidence ‑‑‑Averment in plaintiff's pleadings to the effect that in case transaction of sale between vendor and vendee (appellant) failed in respect of a part of land in question, plaintiff even then be willing to enforce his right of pre‑emption regarding remaining land‑‑‑Such averment showed keenness of plaintiff to enforce his right in all events and at all costs‑‑‑Such fact did not show that he was not willing to enforce his right of pre‑emption regarding entire suit land‑‑‑Case being not one of misreading or non‑reading of evidence, was rightly decreed by High Court. Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent No.l. Ch. M. Yamin, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Date of hearing: 25th August, 1991. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: ‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of appellant's Civil Revision. The respondents' suit for pre‑emption was dismissed and their appeal having been accepted the High Court declined to interfere with the appellate judgment in its Revisional jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was granted to examine: whether it is "a case of misreading as well as non‑reading" of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the averments made in the respondents' pleadings if read together will show as if they had not intended to enforce their right of pre‑emption regarding the entire suit land. Therefore, the decree merited to be set aside. It is in this regard that he reiterated that it is a case of misreading and non‑reading of evidence. We have gone through the plaint. There is, of course, a mention that in case the transaction of sale between the vendor and the vendee the present appellant, fails in respect of a part of the suit land the controversy about which was probably then going on, the plaintiff even then be willing to enforce his right of pre‑emption regarding the remaining land: This rather shows the keen ness of the plaintiff to enforce his right in all events and at all costs. He had also categorically stated that even if the transaction does or does not fail, as stated above, he would definitely continue to enforce his right regarding the suit land. All this is supported by the fact that although the respondents' suit had been decreed regarding the entire suit land, he has not come to this Court to seek reduction either of price or of area on account of what the learned counsel admitted the reduction of the area due to intervening events. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that it is neither a case of misreading nor non‑reading of evidence. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./M‑1909/S Appeal dismissed.