IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal Nos.653 to 656 of 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 10.03.2014 passed by the High 
Court of Peshawar in Civil Revision Nos.275, 281, 284 & 285 of 
2003) 
 
 
Zilla Muhammad and others  
(in C.A.653/2014) 
Saidi Gul (deceased) through LRs 
(in C.A.654/2014) 
Sher Khan (deceased) through LRs & others  
(in C.A.655 & 656/2014) 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
Kifayat Ali 
(in all cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman, ASC 
 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Khalid Mehmood, ASC 
 
Mr. M. Ijaz Khan Sabi, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing: 
06.12.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Captioned appeals, 
arisen out of consolidated judgment dated 10.3.2014 by a learned 
Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court, overturns findings, 
recorded by a learned Civil Judge at Nowshera whereby he dismissed 
respondent’s four suits for possession through pre-emption, vide 
judgment and decree dated 23.9.2000, affirmed by a learned Addl. 
District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2002.  
 
The suit land, comprising four pieces, situates within the revenue 
limits of Tehsil Lahor of District Swabi, KPK; sales were transacted 
through mutation Nos.419 dated 12.11.1995, 420 dated 22.11.1996, 
556 dated 25.11.1996 and 484, 485 both dated 25.10.1997, 
respectively.  
Civil Appeal Nos.653 to 656 of 2014                                   2 
 
What weighed with the learned trial Judge to non-suit the 
respondent has been his purported failure to perform Talab-i-Muwatibat 
within the contemplation of Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa  
Pre-emption Act,1987, besides one suit, hit by the period of limitation.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was 
no occasion for the learned High Court to reverse well-reasoned 
findings, returned by the learned trial Judge, duly affirmed by the 
learned Appellate Court, leaving little space for the High Court to 
entertain a contra hypothesis  so as to upset a finding of fact in exercise 
of its revisional jurisdiction. Concurrence of error was rectified, argued 
the learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned 
judgment.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Performance of Talab-i-Muwatibat is the core issue in three 
suits, instituted to pre-empt sales dated 12.11.1995, 22.11.1996 and 
25.11.1996; in each case, Muhammad Nabi is informant to the plaintiff, 
latter a lawyer by profession; according to Muhammad Nabi, he 
acquired knowledge of first two sales on 1.2.1996 through one 
Shamsher son of Sher Bahadar and went all the way to District Courts 
Nowshera to lay information with the plaintiff, present in the Bar room 
alongside Muhammad Hanif Khan and Mian Abdul Karim Advocates, on 
1.2.1996 at 11:00 a.m. however, in his cross-examination, while 
responding to a query as to when received information, he stated that 
"ﮯﮨ ﺖﻗو ﺎﮐ هرﺎﯿﮔ ہﮐ، ﺎﮭﭼﻮﭘ ﮟﯿﻣ ےرﺎﺑ ﮯﮐ ﺖﻗو ﮯﺳ ﯽﺳوﮍﭘ ﮯﻧ ﮟﯿﻣ Muhammad Nabi PW 
statedly learnt about the third sale again through the same informant 
on 5.3.1997 and once again went to District Courts Nowshera and 
informed the plaintiff at about 10:00 a.m; in cross-examination 
regarding the point of time, his explanation is as follows: 
 ﺎﮭﭼﻮﭘ ﮟﯿﻣ ےرﺎﺑ ﮯﮐ ﺖﻗو ﮯﺳ ںﻮﯿﺳوﮍﭘ ﮯﻧ ﮟﯿﻣ" 
  ہﮐ ﺎﮭﺗ ﺎﮩﮐ ﮯﮭﭽﻣ ﮯﻧ ںﻮﮭﻧا روا10 "ﮯﮨ ﺖﻗو ﺎﮐ ﮯﺠﺑ 
 
The learned Civil Judge viewed statement of Muhammad Nabi PW as 
inherently flawed and discrepant, given the inter se distance  between 
the village and District Courts Nowshera, judicially noticed by him as 
70 miles, though not specifically mentioned in the evidence. On an 
independent analysis, statement of Muhammad Nabi fails to inspire 
confidence for reasons more than one; after having acquired knowledge 
at 11:00 a.m. in the village, regardless of the inter se distance, he 
needed a speed of light to reach District Courts Nowshera, at the same 
point of time, a capacity that he certainly lacked. Similarly, disclosure 
Civil Appeal Nos.653 to 656 of 2014                                   3 
of sale on the three occasions through the same source i.e. Shamsher 
son of Sher Bahadar and conveyance of information to the plaintiff in 
the Bar room of District Courts in Nowsher presents a story that may 
not find a prudent buyer; a script, poor by all means, resting upon a 
rare coincidence that seldom occurs, thus, the view taken by the 
learned Civil Judge, affirmed by the learned Appellate Court on factual 
plane, being a possible view, does not appear to be unrealistic or 
bombastic and as such does not constitute an error or irregularity nor 
can be equated with non-reading or misreading of evidence, amenable 
to interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional 
jurisdiction.  
 
The fourth sale was transacted by the respondent on 12.5.1995 
through a Court decree dated 10.12.1995, he was judicially declared to 
be owner in possession of the suit land w.e.f. 12.5.1995 and, thus, the 
suit ought to have been filed within a period of 120 days therefrom as is 
mandated by clause (c) of section 31 of the Act ibid and, thus, both the 
learned trial Judge as well as the first Appellate Court were well within 
the remit of law to non-suit the plaintiff for his failure to perform Talab-
i-Khasumat within the prescribed period of time. See Muhammad Nazeef 
Khan 
Vs. 
Gulbat 
Khan 
and 
others 
(2012 
SCMR 
235) 
and  
Mst. Rooh Afza Vs. Aurangzeb and others (2015 SCMR 92). Appeals are 
allowed; impugned judgment dated 10.03.2014 is set aside; judgments 
and decrees passed by the trial court, upheld by the first Appellate 
Court are restored. No order as to costs.  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on 30.12.2021 
at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
Judge