IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.303 of 2014 
(Against 
judgment 
dated 
28.10.2013 
of 
the 
Peshawar High Court D.I. Khan Bench passed in 
C.R. No.195 of 2010) 
 
Ahmad Bakhsh (deceased) through LRs 
  
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Ameer Ali Khan 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Anwar Khan, ASC 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. M. Waheed Anjum, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
Date of hearing: 
03.03.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Ahmed Bukhsh, 
predecessor-in-interest, pre-empted sale through mutation dated 
14.9.1999, asserting his superior right of being a co-sharer in the 
estate; Ameer Ali, vendee/respondent, contested the suit, decreed 
by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2000,  
a finding maintained by the Appellate Court, however, reversed by 
the High Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2013, for failure to 
perform Talabs in accordance with law, vires whereof are being 
impugned through this right appeal.  
2. 
 
The High Court recapitulated plaintiff’s evidence 
regarding performance of Talabs and found it fraught with 
contradictions, discrepancies and improvements to arrive at a 
conclusion that Talabs were not performed in accordance with law.  
3. 
 
With the assistance of learned counsel for the 
appellants, we have examined the record. Notice (Ex.PW-5/1), 
purportedly issued by the plaintiff sans reference to Khalid (PW-5), 
a witness produced to prove Talab-i-Ishhad; he surfaced for the 
first time on 14.5.2009 to depose that he along with the plaintiff 
 Civil Appeal No.303 of 2014 
2
was present in a Baithak when Hameedullah (PW-3) disclosed the 
factum of sale; Hameedullah when himself examined remained 
silent, conspicuously omitted any such encounter with Khalid PW. 
Witnesses are also discrepant on other relevant details regarding 
time and manner, the Talabs were made; contradictions are such 
in nature that stance taken by one witness cannot be accepted 
without first excluding the others’ and vice versa; the High Court 
has been justified to exclude their statements from consideration 
and, on our own independent analysis, conclusion being 
irresistible, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a 
contra view. Appeal fails. Dismissed.   
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd March, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
