2004 PLP 1949 (CLC)

(b) Words and Phrases

Immediate", meaning of

Term `immediate' would mean doing of a thing at once and without delay. Mian Muhammad Akram for Petitioners. Rana M. Sajid for Respondents: Vide Mutation No.283 attested on 28-6-1995 the respondents purchased the suit-land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs.2,50,

000. On 24-10-199S the petitioners filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. They claimed to be the owners of the adjacent property. Performance of Talbs was pleaded. The respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the said allegations. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 10-1-2000 while a learned Additional District Judge, Vehari dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner on 26-1-2002.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the case of Gul Hussain, Shah v. Mulazim Hussain Shah 1996 SCMR 294 to urge that notwithstanding the statements of his witnesses, the Talb-e-Muwathibat could have been made before the dispersal of the Majlis in which the knowledge was acquired. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relies on PLD 2001 SC 13 to urge that the Talb was to be made without any loss of time to be valid.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now in the plaint it was stated that the petitioners came to know about the sale on 1-10-1995 and in the same Majlis and immediately upon coming to know they made the first Talb. Now Muhammad Ali petitioner appeared as P.W.8 stated that on 1-10-1995 Muhammad Iqbal informed about the sale he and his brother said that they will file a pre-emption suit. In cross-examination he stated that it took about three minutes to convey the said information by Iqbal and first he said that the suit would be filed and then his brother Zafar (second petitioner) made the said statement. Now Muhammad Iqbal the said informer appeared as P. W.6. In his cross-examination he stated that it was 10/20 minutes after he had told the petitioners that they said that they will file the suit. Ghulam Kabria P.W.5 stated in his examination -in-chief that on 1-10-1995 when he was present at the Dera of Muhammad Ali petitioner. Iqbal informed of the sale and Muhammad Ali stated that he will file the suit. It will be noted that this witness does not state that Zafar Ali petitioner also made the Talb. Now both the learned Courts below have inter alia(?) relied upon the said delay in making of the Talb while holding that a Talb in accordance with law has not been made.

4. Now I have examined the said judgment in the case of Gul Hussain Shah being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that his Lordship has observed at page 297 of the report with reference to earlier case-law that a pre-emptor is required to make the declaration "without any delay and immediately upon acquisition of knowledge".

5. Now to similar effect is the judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. Now in the explanation to section 13, of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 which was enacted consequent upon the declaration of law by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case of Said Kamal Shah, Talb-e -Muwathihat has been defined as an immediate demand by a pre-emptor in the sitting or meeting in which he has come to know the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. To my mind the said provision of law lays down two conditions. The first is the immediate making of the demand and the second is the making of the said demand in the said manner in the same Majlis. This is how their Lordships have observed in the said judgments. Even going by the dictionary meaning, the term immediate means doing of a thing at once and without delay. This being so, the. conclusion arrived at by the, learned Courts below to the said state of evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse or for that matter illegal. The civil revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-507/L Revision dismissed.