1997SCMR416 (PLP)

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13‑2‑1995 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in Civil Revision Petition No.994 of 1994.

2. Respondent claiming his superior right of pre‑emption pre‑empted the sale of land measuring 342 Kanals 12 Marlas detailed in the plaint purchased by the petitioners Nos . l to 5 and predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos. 6 and 7, from one Faiz Muhammad through Mutation No.3052 attested on 30‑5‑1969. Petitioners contested the suit. They then moved an application on 22‑4‑1981 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that village Lohanch Thal Kalan in which the respondent was owner of land, was no more in existence as new revenue estate was created through Notification dated 2‑2‑1956 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. That the land subject‑matter of the suit was part of revenue estate of Chak No.383/TDA where the respondent did not own or possess any land. The learned trial Court proceeded with the suit as well as the application and subsequently dismissed the application and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 13‑1‑1992. In the appeal filed by the petitioners an application was moved for production of additional evidence which was dismissed on 29‑6‑1983. Against the dismissal of application for additional evidence and in consequence of their appeal the petitioners filed the R.S.A. in the High Court with a separate application for additional evidence. By judgment dated 17‑10‑1989 the R.S.A. was accepted and the case was remanded to the first Appellate Court to dispose of .the appeal on merits and also decide the application for production of additional evidence as well as the application for amendment of written statement if moved. Petition for leave to appeal against the said order filed by the respondent was dismissed as withdrawn in this Court.

3. The learned Appellate Court on receipt of the file on remand and the application for amendment of written statement, in pursuance of the observation made in the order of remand, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed both the applications of the petitioners i.e. the application for amendment of written statement and that for production of additional evidence, by order dated 5‑5‑1994. The aforementioned order dated 5‑5‑1994 was challenged in Civil Revision Petition before the learned High Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 13‑2‑1995 which is impugned herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the said arguments which did not prevail with the learned District Judge and for that matter in revision by the learned High Court. When questioned as to whether he has placed on record any such document which could prima facie establish that the Maoza in question was bifurcated and the land owned by the petitioners does not fall within the Chak where the suit land is situated, the learned counsel was unable to point out any such document.

5. The learned High Court has given cogent reasons in support of the proposition that in pre‑emption matters sufficiently delayed applications for additional evidence and applications for amendments of the plaints or written statements are rarely allowed. Reliance has been placed on Abdur Rashid alias Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Hanif and 2 others (1994 SCMR 2035) and Mst. Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah and others (1994 SCMR 2293).

6. Even otherwise permission for amendment of written statement and permission for adducing additional evidence is discretionary with the Court and the discretion if exercised in accordance with the law is not open to interference, at this stage. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused and petition is dismissed. A.A./K‑31‑2/S Leave refused.