IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.240-P of 2014 
(Against judgment dated 29.11.2010 passed by 
Peshawar High Court Peshawar in C.R. No.1845 of 
2010 with C.M. No.1887 of 2010) 
  
 
Liaqat Ali & others 
  
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Safdar Khan 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. M. Shoaib Khan, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
02.03.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- A piece of land 
measuring 15-Kanal 3-Marla, situate within the remit of Chak 
Turangzai District Charsadda has been a proverbial battle field for 
a contest, raging since its sale on 13.6.2005; it was purchased by 
the appellant, ostensibly for a consideration of Rs.600,000/-,  
a transaction pre-empted by Safdar Khan respondent/plaintiff, on 
account of his acclaimed superior rights to the land as enumerated 
in Section 6 of the K.P.K. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The suit was 
dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree 
dated 13.09.2008 for pre-emptor’s failure to perform Talabs in 
accordance with law; the failure plunged adjudication on collateral 
issues into irrelevance; plaintiff’s appeal before a learned 
Additional District Judge met with no better fate vide judgment 
and decree dated 13.6.2009; undeterred by consecutive failures, 
the plaintiff successfully impugned dismissals in the High Court;  
a learned Judge-in-Chamber vide judgment dated 5.7.2010 
remanded the case to the Appellate Court to re-appraise entire 
evidence regarding performance of “Talabs” in consequence 
whereof, the learned Additional District Judge allowed plaintiff’s 
Civil Appeal No.240-P of 2014 
 
 
2 
appeal vide judgment and decree dated 8-9-2010, impugned by the 
vendee defendant in the High Court with no success. It is in this 
backdrop that High Court judgment dated 29.11.2010 is being 
assailed by leave of the Court granted, inter alia, to consider 
whether the respondent had succeeded in establishing Talabs in 
accordance with law, his superior right on the basis of his being a 
co-sharer as well as the actual sale price; in his last ditch effort, 
the appellant, through C.M.A. No.10899 of 2019 seeks permission 
to produce additional documents.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
respondent/pre-emptor miserably failed to establish performance 
of Talabs, an inherent flaw that escaped notice both by the 
Appellate Court as well as the High Court; it is next argued that 
the defendant was intimated prior to the sale and he had 
acquiesced 
the 
transaction; 
appearance 
of 
Fazal 
Majeed, 
Registration Clerk GPO Charsadda, as PW-2, to establish dispatch 
of postal notice, has been assailed on the ground that he was not 
the postman who had actually delivered the notice. Sale 
consideration as Rs.600,000/- was vehemently defended as real by 
the learned counsel while concluding his submissions. The 
judgment has been defended by the respondent being well within 
the remit of law.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Respondent’s preferential right to pre-empt the sale, 
on account of his being Shafi Jar is recognized even by the learned 
trial Judge who otherwise had dismissed the suit; cross-objections 
raised by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge 
were also repelled on the strength of statement of Fazal Karim 
Patwari (PW-1) who produced relevant revenue record, i.e. Aks 
Shajjra Kashat (Ex.PW-1/2) to clinch the question of contiguity. 
Regarding the actual sale price as Rs.3,61,240/- there has been 
judicial consensus throughout. In this backdrop, performance of 
Talabs is the moot point. Supported by Syed Muhammad Arshad 
(PW-6) and Salar (PW-7), the plaintiff entered the witness box as 
PW-5 to solemnly affirm as under:- 
  ہعمب ںیم دوخ ہرجح عقاو روٹس لکیڈیم ناکود ےنپا ںیم ہک
 تقوب نارود یسا ہک ےھت ےھٹیب اچاب دشرا فلز مہ5 جب ے  
02.08.2005   روا ۔ایآ رلااس راکتشاک اریم رہپ ہہس
Civil Appeal No.240-P of 2014 
 
 
3 
  دمحم ناج بحاص یجاح تسویپ ےک پآ ہک اہک ےھجم
  سُا ےن ںیم وت یل دیرخ ےن مہیلع اعدم یضارا یک ہریغو
  ہخروم ۔ایک راہظا اک ےنرک رئاد عفش ٰیوعد فلاخ ےک عیب
03.08.2005   یرٹسجر ےس سفآ رارٹسجر ےن ںیم وک
 م ٹیٹس وٹوف اک عیب  ہخروم رھپ ۔ایک لوصو لقن ہقدص
06.08.2005   ےد عفش سٹون وک مہیلع اعدم ےن ںیم وک
 مہیلع اعدم مانب لقن ٹیٹس وٹوف اک روکذم سٹون ۔ید
EX-
  EX-PW 5/3   ات  PW 5/1
 ۔ےہ 
 
Syed Muhammad Arshad (PW-6) and Salar (PW-7) corroborated 
plaintiff’s position; the witnesses are in a comfortable unison on all 
the relevant details as well as the manner, the plaintiff declared his 
intention to pre-empt the sale; positions inconsonance with the 
pleadings. Argument that the witnesses were discrepant is beside 
the mark; “contradictions” blown out of proportion are merely 
narrative variations that inevitably occur in a truthful discourse, 
particularly after flux of time. A statutory right cannot be allowed 
to be defeated on subjective hyper technical assertions, as held by 
this Court in cases reported as Abdul Qayum through Legal Heirs 
Vs. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2001 SCMR 798), Hameed ullah 
Khan and others Vs. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon (2008 SCMR 1444),  
Muhammad Tariq and 4 others Vs. Asif Javed and another  
(2009 SCMR 240), Abdul Latif alias Muhammad Latif alias Babu 
Vs. Dil Mir and others (2010 SCMR 1087), Daud Shah Vs. Waris 
Shah and others (2014 SCMR 852). Appellants’ claim that they had 
intimated the respondent about their intention to purchase the 
land and transacted the sale only after they forewent the option, 
fails to inspire us. Afsar Ali (DW-2), Shoaib (DW-3) and Liaqat Ali 
(DW-4) are diametrically apart in their quest to establish plaintiff’s 
acquiescence; statement of one witness cannot be accepted 
without first excluding the remainders and vice versa. We are also 
not impressed by the argument that the postman who had actually 
delivered the notice ought to have appeared in person instead of 
Fazal Majeed, Registration Clerk GPO and Zahid Ahmed, Postman, 
who respectively appeared as PW-2 & PW-3. Plaintiff by producing 
these 
official 
witnesses 
along 
with 
relevant 
receipts 
and 
acknowledgement due aptly discharged the onus to establish 
dispatch of notice. There is perpetual continuity in State business, 
sustained by officials in succession. Conclusions concurrently 
Civil Appeal No.240-P of 2014 
 
 
4 
drawn by the courts below do not call for interference. Appeal fails. 
Concomitantly, C.M.A. No.10899/2019 is also dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
2nd March, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
