PLJ 2026 SC 8
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Shahid Waheed, Ms. Musarrat Hilali and Salahuddin Panhwar, JJ.
versus
Haji HAQ NAWAZ--Respondent
C.P.L.A. No. 1010-L of 2014, decided on 27.10.2025.
(On appeal against the order/judgment dated 19.06.2014 passed
by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R.No. 1147/2008)
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--
ایس۔ 13-- حقِ شفعہ-- ناکام خریدار-- بیک وقت دریافت-- طلبِ مواثبت-- برتر حق-- اظہارِ ارادہ-- تاخیر-- شک-- شک کا فائدہ-- خریدار-- اپیل-- منظور-- اس درخواست میں غور طلب واحد سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا مدعی علیہ نے طلبِ مواثبت کو ثابت کرنے میں کامیابی حاصل کی، دیئے گئے حالات میں-- یہ تفصیل ایک اہم تشویش کو جنم دیتی ہے: اس سے پتہ چلتا ہے کہ جب اسے پہلی بار فروخت کا علم ہوا اور جب اس نے یہ اطلاع مدعی علیہ تک پہنچائی تو اس کے درمیان کافی وقت گزر چکا تھا-- نتیجتاً، یہ اس دعوے کو کمزور کرتا ہے کہ مدعی علیہ نے مقررہ وقت پر اعلان کیا تھا-- یہ شک اس بات پر غیر یقینی صورتحال پیدا کرتا ہے کہ کیا مدعی علیہ نے واقعی طلبِ مواثبت کو جیسا کہ دعویٰ کیا گیا ہے، انجام دیا-- اگرچہ قانون نے حقِ شفعہ استعمال کرنے کے ارادے کے اعلان کے لیے کوئی مخصوص طریقہ کار تجویز نہیں کیا، لیکن یہ بات بخوبی سمجھ میں آتی ہے کہ ایسے بیان میں اس حق کو استعمال کرنے کے ارادے کو واضح طور پر بیان کیا جانا چاہیے-- تاہم، مذکورہ بالا بیان سے پتہ چلتا ہے کہ مدعی علیہ نے فروخت سے آگاہی حاصل کرنے پر، فوری طور پر اپنے حقِ شفعہ کو استعمال کرنے کے ارادے کا باضابطہ اعلان نہیں کیا، بلکہ محض ایسا کرنے کی خواہش کا اظہار کیا-- یہ پنجاب پری-ایمشن ایکٹ 1991 کی دفعہ 13 کی ضروریات کو پورا کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں تھا-- اب یہ بات ثابت شدہ ہے کہ اگر طلب کے نفاذ کے بارے میں کوئی شک پیدا ہوتا ہے، تو اس شک کا فائدہ خریدار کو ملنا چاہیے-- ان حالات کے پیش نظر، ناگزیر نتیجہ یہ ہے کہ مدعی علیہ طلبِ مواثبت کے نفاذ کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا-- اپیل منظور کی جاتی ہے۔۔
----S. 13--Pre-emption--Unsuccessful vendee--Concurrent finding--Talb-i-muwathibat--Superior right--Declaration of intention--Delay--Doubt--Benefit of doubt--Vendee--Appeal--Allowed--Solitary question presented for consideration in this petition is whether respondent-plaintiff successfully demonstrated making of Talb-i-Muwathibat, given circumstances--This detail raises a significant concern: it suggests that enough time must had passed between when he first learned of sale and when he relayed this information to respondent-plaintiff--Consequently, it undermines assertion that respondent-plaintiff made declaration at stated time--This doubt casts uncertainty on whether respondent-plaintiff truly executed Talb-i-Muwathibat as claimed--Although law did not prescribe a specific format for declaring intent to exercise right of pre-emption, it is well understood that such a statement must clearly articulate an intention to exercise that right-- However, statement above implies that respondent-plaintiff, upon gaining awareness of sale, did not immediately formally declare his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption, but merely expressed a desire to do so--This was not sufficient to meet requirements of Section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991--It is now firmly established that if any doubt arises regarding execution of talbs, benefit of that doubt must favour vendee--Given these circumstances, inescapable conclusion is that respondent-plaintiff had failed to prove execution of Talb-i-Muwathibat--Appeal allowed. [Pp. 9 & 10] A, B, C & D
Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, ASC for Petitioners (through Video Link Lahore).
Raja Muhammad Farooq, ASC for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27.10.2025.
Order
Shahid Waheed, J.--This case involves a matter of pre-emption, governed by the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991. The petitioners, unsuccessful vendees, have filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. These Courts found the facts to be in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, ultimately decreeing his suit for pre-emption. The solitary question presented for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent-plaintiff successfully demonstrated the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat, given the circumstances. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to the pertinent facts concerning the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat.
2. The dispute in this case pertains to a parcel of land measuring 120 kanals, located in Mouza Rakh Shah Hussain, within the limits of Tehsil Noorpur Thal, District Khushab. This land was sold to the present petitioners through a duly registered sale deed No. 93, dated 28th of May, 2001. The respondent-plaintiff sought to invoke the right of pre-emption over this sale, claiming he possessed a superior right to do so. He contended that he had duly completed the necessary legal formalities known as ‘talbs’. The respondent-plaintiff asserted that on 7th of June, 2001, at 07:00 AM, while seated in his drawing room in Mouza Bumbool, he became aware of the sale through Umar Daraz (PW.3), in the presence of Muhammad Ramzan (PW.4). Upon receiving this information, he claimed to have made a formal declaration to exercise his right of pre-emption. The onus was on the respondent-plaintiff to substantiate his claims by producing compelling evidence that demonstrated the completion of Talb-i-Muwathibat. Upon scrutinising the record, it is revealed that the respondent-plaintiff took the stand before the Trial Court as his own witness, identified as PW.2, and reiterated the assertions made in his plaint. He also presented Umar Daraz (PW.3), the informer, in support of his claims. During his examination-in-chief, Umar Daraz stated that he had learned of the sale at 07:00 AM on the 7th of June, 2001, while at his uncle’s Dera, which is situated in proximity to the respondent’s Dera. During his cross-examination, Umar Daraz elaborated on the distance between his uncle’s Dera and the respondent’s Dera, indicating that approximately 15 to 20 houses lay between them. This detail raises a significant concern: it suggests that enough time must have passed between when he first learned of the sale and when he relayed this information to the respondent-plaintiff. Consequently, it undermines the assertion that the respondent-plaintiff made the declaration at the stated time. This doubt casts uncertainty on whether the respondent-plaintiff truly executed the Talb-i-Muwathibat as claimed.
3. Furthermore, there is another critical aspect that bolsters the petitioners’ assertion that the respondent-plaintiff failed to execute the Talb-i-Muwathibat according to legal standards properly. During his examination-in-chief, Umar Daraz mentioned:
“مدعی نے کہا کہ میں اراضی متدعویہ شفع کرنا ہے، آپ میرے ساتھ آئیں، اس وقت میں اور محمد رمضان موجود تھے۔”
Although the law does not prescribe a specific format for declaring the intent to exercise the right of pre-emption, it is well understood that such a statement must clearly articulate an intention to exercise that right. However, the statement above implies that the respondent-plaintiff, upon gaining awareness of the sale, did not immediately formally declare his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption, but merely expressed a desire to do so. This was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991.
4. It is now firmly established that if any doubt arises regarding the execution of the talbs, the benefit of that doubt must favour the vendee. Given these circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of Talb-i-Muwathibat.
5. In conclusion, this petition is converted into an appeal and is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below are hereby set aside, and the suit
brought forth by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(J.K.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments