21/07/2026
❓ کیا حقِ شفعہ کا دعویٰ Hearsay Evidence اور نامکمل Talbs کی بنیاد پر برقرار رہ سکتا ہے؟
⚖️ 2026 MLD 1165 (Lahore – Rawalpindi Bench)
👤 Talib Hussain vs. Muhammad Akram
👨⚖️ Before: Rasaal Hasan Sayed, J.
📅 Civil Revision No. 491-D of 2015 Decided on: 20-06-2025
📚 متعلقہ قوانین (Relevant Provisions)
⚖️ Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991
تعریف: حقِ شفعہ استعمال کرنے کے لیے Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad مقررہ قانونی طریقے سے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
⚖️ Article 71, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
تعریف: Hearsay Evidence (سنی سنائی بات) قابلِ قبول شہادت نہیں۔
⚖️ Article 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
تعریف: ضروری گواہ جان بوجھ کر پیش نہ کیا جائے تو عدالت منفی مفروضہ (Adverse Inference) قائم کر سکتی ہے۔
⚖️ Section 115, Civil Procedure Code
تعریف: ہائی کورٹ واضح Misreading، Non-reading یا قانونی بے ضابطگی کی صورت میں Revisional Jurisdiction استعمال کر سکتی ہے۔
⚖️ قانونی تصور (Legal Concept)
📌 Proof of Talb & Hearsay Evidence
مختصر تعریف: حقِ شفعہ صرف اسی وقت قائم ہوتا ہے جب Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad قانون کے مطابق معتبر شہادت سے ثابت ہوں، نہ کہ سنی سنائی باتوں سے۔
📝 مختصر حقائق (Facts of the Case)
🔹 مدعی نے حقِ شفعہ کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
🔹 اس نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اسے فروخت کی اطلاع ایک شخص نے Patwari سے معلوم ہونے کے بعد دی۔
🔹 Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad ثابت کرنے کے لیے گواہ پیش کیے گئے۔
🔹 Patwari، جو اصل ذریعۂ اطلاع تھا، عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔
🔹 Trial Court اور Appellate Court نے دعویٰ منظور کیا۔
🔹 مدعا علیہ نے ہائی کورٹ میں Revision دائر کی۔
❓ بنیادی قانونی سوال (Question of Law)
کیا حقِ شفعہ کا دعویٰ Hearsay Evidence اور نامکمل Talb کی بنیاد پر برقرار رہ سکتا ہے؟
⚖️ عدالت کا فیصلہ (Held)
✅ نہیں۔
مدعی Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad قانون کے مطابق ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔
لہٰذا دونوں عدالتوں کے فیصلے کالعدم قرار دے کر دعویٰ خارج کر دیا گیا۔
📖 عدالت کی تفصیلی وجوہات
⚖️ 1۔ Hearsay Evidence ناقابلِ قبول ہے
گواہ نے خود فروخت نہیں دیکھی بلکہ Patwari سے سن کر بیان دیا۔
ایسی شہادت Article 71 کے تحت ناقابلِ قبول ہے۔
⚖️ 2۔ اصل ذریعۂ اطلاع (Patwari) پیش نہیں کیا گیا
Patwari سب سے اہم گواہ تھا۔
اسے پیش نہ کرنے پر عدالت نے Article 129(g) کے تحت Adverse Inference لیا۔
⚖️ 3۔ Talb-i-Muwathibat ثابت نہ ہو سکی
فروخت کی اطلاع ملنے کے فوراً بعد حقِ شفعہ کا اعلان معتبر شہادت سے ثابت نہیں ہوا۔
⚖️ 4۔ Talb-i-Ishhad بھی ثابت نہ ہوئی
Notice کی ترسیل ثابت نہ ہو سکی۔
Postman پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔
Notice لکھنے والا وکیل بھی بطور گواہ پیش نہیں ہوا۔
⚖️ 5۔ Counsel کا بیان شہادت نہیں
صرف وکیل کے ذریعے Notice پیش کرنا قانونی شہادت نہیں۔
اصل مصنف یا متعلقہ گواہ پیش ہونا ضروری تھا۔
⚖️ 6۔ Revisional Jurisdiction استعمال ہو سکتی ہے
اگرچہ Concurrent Findings موجود تھیں،
لیکن وہ ناقابلِ قبول شہادت پر مبنی تھیں۔
اس لیے High Court نے Section 115 CPC کے تحت مداخلت کی۔
📌 عدالت کے اہم قانونی اصول (Legal Principles)
⭐ Principle No.1
📌 Hearsay Evidence پر حقِ شفعہ ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
⭐ Principle No.2
📌 اصل Informer یا Source of Information کو بطور گواہ پیش کرنا ضروری ہے۔
⭐ Principle No.3
📌 ضروری گواہ نہ لانے پر عدالت Adverse Inference لے سکتی ہے۔
⭐ Principle No.4
📌 Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad کی سختی سے تعمیل لازمی ہے۔
⭐ Principle No.5
📌 Concurrent Findings بھی Misreading یا ناقابلِ قبول شہادت کی بنیاد پر ہوں تو High Court مداخلت کر سکتی ہے۔
⭐ Principle No.6
📌 حقِ شفعہ ایک کمزور حق ہے، اس لیے اس کی قانونی شرائط کا سختی سے ثبوت ضروری ہے۔
👨⚖️ وکلاء کے لیے عملی نکات (Practical Tips for Advocates)
🟢 اگر آپ Defendant کے وکیل ہوں
✅ Hearsay Evidence پر اعتراض کریں۔
✅ اصل Informer کو پیش نہ کرنے کا نکتہ اٹھائیں۔
✅ Article 129(g) کے تحت Adverse Inference طلب کریں۔
✅ Talb-i-Muwathibat اور Talb-i-Ishhad کی قانونی خامیوں کو نمایاں کریں۔
✅ Misreading کی بنیاد پر Revision Maintainable ہونے کا مؤقف اختیار کریں۔
🔵 اگر آپ Plaintiff کے وکیل ہوں
✔ اصل Informer (Patwari) کو بطور گواہ پیش کریں۔
✔ Talb-i-Muwathibat فوری اور معتبر شہادت سے ثابت کریں۔
✔ Talb-i-Ishhad کی قانونی شرائط مکمل کریں۔
✔ Notice کا مصنف اور Postman بطور گواہ پیش کریں۔
🏛️ High Court Final Order
✅ Revision منظور۔
✅ دونوں ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے کالعدم۔
✅ حقِ شفعہ کا دعویٰ خارج۔
🌟 Golden Principle
"A pre-emption suit cannot succeed on hearsay evidence; Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad must be proved through legally admissible and reliable evidence."
📌 یاد رکھنے والا نکتہ (Exam & Practice Point)
⭐ Hearsay Evidence، Talb-i-Muwathibat یا Talb-i-Ishhad ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔
⭐ ضروری گواہ کو پیش نہ کرنے پر Article 129(g) کے تحت Adverse Inference لیا جا سکتا ہے۔
Posted by Legal Luminaries
2026 MLD 1165
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Rasaal Hasan Sayed, J
TALIB HUSSAIN---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AKRAM---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 491-D of 2015, decided on 20th June, 2025.
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---
----S. 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 71 & 129(g)---Right of pre-emption---Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-lishhad---Proof, deficiency of---Person, who was alleged source of information, not produced in evidence---Hearsay evidence---Petitioner defendant was aggrieved of concurrent decrees in favour of pre-emptor (respondent)---Held: The alleged informer appeared as a witness of plaintiff / respondent (being PW2) and deposed that he had gone to Patwari Halqa who told him that the land had been sold in his village and that he then went to the house of respondent and informed him about the sale in presence of two persons, and that on receiving this information the respondent immediately announced his right of preemption which was followed by notice of talb-i-ishhad---One of the persons present was not produced in evidence by the respondent while he himself appeared as PW1 and produced second/other alleged person present (as PW3); both of them recorded their statements to the effect that PW2 had informed about the sale of suit land in favour of petitioner and that he (alleged informer) was told about the sale by Patwari Halqa---Perusal of the statement of PW2/ alleged informer made it evident that the witness was making a hearsay statement being inadmissible under Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as he did not claim to be present at the time of sale nor it was his plea that he was witness to the sale itself or that he was present at the time of negotiations of the sale or at the time of attestation of mutation, nor was it his claim that he had seen the mutation document; so much so in his statement he did not disclose the time, date and place of sale, and whatever he claimed to have stated was on the alleged disclosure of the sale to him by patwari---In such circumstances, the statement of patwari was most relevant as he shall be deemed in law and actually to be the informer---Only Patwari Halqa, who according to PW2/ alleged informer, had divulged the information of sale to him, could prove by appearing in the court as a witness, if PW2 had ever visited him and whether the information of sale was passed to PW2 by him---Therefore, it was necessary for the pre-emptor (plaintiff/respondent) to produce the Patwari as a witness to complete the chain of source of information, which had not been done, and adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahahdat, 1984 could be drawn to assume that the Pawari Halqa was withheld as he was not willing to support the respondent/pre-emptor or PW2 in said context---As regards Talb-i-Ishhad, the postman who had delivered the notice allegedly was not produced instead another person (as PW5) was produced who admitted in cross-examination that the notice was not delivered by him but by someone else who was posted in the area prior to him---Similarly, the requirements of Talb-i-Ishhad that the pre-emptor shall declare that he had made talb-i-muwathibt and that he undertakes to enforce it, were not fulfilled as it was neither claimed in the plaint nor in the evidence that such a declaration was made by the respondent while the evidence was to the extent of preparation of notice by a counsel which was signed by respondent and his witnesses---So much so the notice was not produced in evidence of PW1 nor was the scribe of the notice produced rather notice was tendered in the statement of counsel which was inadmissible in law---Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff having failed to prove talb-i-muwathibat rest of the claim in respect of talb-i-ishhad would fall to the ground---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below filed by respondent stood dismissed---Revision petition, filed by as a consequence thereof the suit defendant, was allowed.
Farid Ullah Khan v. Irfan Ullah Khan 2022 SCMR 1231 and Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Akram and others 2024 SCMR 692 ref.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S. 13---Right of pre-emption---Talb-i-muwathibat and talb-ishhad---Proof, deficiency of---Concurrent findings---Patent illegalities---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner / defendant was aggrieved of concurrent decrees in favour of pre-emptor (respondent)---Validity---Record / evidence revealed that the findings that the courts below recorded their decisions on, were based on hearsay evidence, which was inadmissible in law---Concurrent findings of courts below on the question of fact if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity bearing on merits of the case, are not open to question at revisional stage but where position on the record is to the contrary the courts are not denuded of the power to interfere with such findings---In the instant case, the courts below banked on evidence that was inadmissible and lacked in credence which was misread and misinterpreted, as such, the objection as to the maintainability of revision petition was without legal force and was rejected---High Court set-aside the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below, as a consequence thereof the suit filed by respondent stood dismissed---Revision petition, filed by defendant, was allowed. [pp. 1170, 1171] E & F
