' This civil revision assails judgment and decree, dated 6-1-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad whereby preemption suit of the respondents was decreed, reversing judgment and decree of the.Trial Court, dated 14-7-2003.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against sale of land measuring 33 Kanals, 3 Marlas and 5 sarsahis detailed in the plaint, vide Mutation No.158, dated 18-9-1999, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000. Superiority of right was claimed by the respondent, being "Shafi Sharik" and it was asserted that he gained knowledge of the sale, subject of suit, through one Kalay Khan in presence of named witnesses and he in the same "Mujlis" exclaimed his intention of pre-emption it and thus performed "Talb-i-Muwathibat". It was also pleaded that he fulfilled the legal requirements of "Talb-i-Ishhad" by sending a notice, dated 25-9- 1999 attested by two truthful witnesses and thereafter he filed the suit.
3. The petitioners being defendants in the suit, denied assertions in the plaint and besides refuting performance of talabs by the respondent, raised certain preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action and locus standi etc. By filing their written statement. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitating framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge who was seiz...d of the matter, after dying the needful on the basis of his appraisal of evidence dismissed the snit of the respondent vide his judgment and decree, dated 14-7-2003.
4. The respondent aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, dated 14-7-2003 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, where he succeeded and his suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.2,00,000 by accepting his appeal. The petitioners, thereafter filed instant revision petition. In response to notice, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent admitted while appearing as P.W.5 that bargain of sale was within his knowledge about three months prior to the sanctioning of mutation and as such, the sale was in his knowledge but the talabs were not performed inaccordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. He further contended that both the respondents and vendor are real brothers, living in one home, cannot be said to have gained knowledge on the date asserted by the respondent. According to him, "Talb-i- Muwathibat" should have been made on the day when the mutations was sanctioned. It has also been submitted that according to copy of the mutation (Exh. D.2), it was entered on 13-8-1999, hence. Performance of talabs by the respondent on 19-9-1999 and 25-9-1999 were beyond the period prescribed by law. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to statement of P.Ws. To show that there were contradictions, in view of which, their statements could not have been relied to conclude that the respondent fulfilled the requirements of performance of talbs. He also referred to statement of P.W.3 who had stated that the respondent was not aware of the sale earlier to sanctioning of mutation whereas the respondent himself admitted that he was aware bargain of sale, was within his knowledge, three months earlier to the sanctioning of mutation.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted arguments of the petitioners, supported appellate judgment and decree and urged that though, bargain between the vendor and the petitioners was within the knowledge of the respondent but sale and the mutation was cancelled from him regarding which information to him was conveyed by one Kalay Khan on 19-9- 1999 on which he immediately demanded the land in question and showed his intention of filing the preemption suit. According to him, "Talb-i-Muwathibat" was made the next day of sanctioning of mutation on gaining knowledge of sale through it and being abrupt cannot be doubted. He further contended that law requires performance of talabs from the date of knowledge of sale and not from the date of bargain thus, mere knowledge of bargain does not extinguish rights of the respondent. It has also been submitted that there is no contradiction amongst the statements of P.
Ws and if at all, there be any, that being of very minor nature, does not go to the roots of the case, disentitling the respondent from the decree prayed.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Though reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction yet as the petitioners have claimed misreading of evidence. I have undertaken this exercise to satisfy myself and to verify the propriety of judgment and decree impugned. In order to prove "Tabl-i-Muwathibat", the respondent examined three witnesses including his own statement. P.W.3 is Muhammad Riaz son of Noor Ahmad, who deposed on 24-5- 2003 that about three years three months and twenty days earlier, a day after the sale in question, while sitting at a "Dera" Kalay Khan alias Razzaq came and informed the respondent about the salewhereupon the respondent immediately reacted and said that he will preempt it, as his rights is superior. He also signed the notice of "Talb-iIshhad" (Ex.P.1), dated 25-9-1999. The other witness is P.W.4 Muhammad Aslam son of Inayat Ali. He is also a witness of the notice (Exh. P.1) and deposed on absolutely similar lines like P.W.3., P.W.5 is the respondent himself, he materially supported the other witnesses and his averments in the plaint. No doubt P.W.4 stated that they were sitting on "Dera of Arains" whereas the other two witnesses namely P.W.3 and P.W.5 had simply said that they were sitting on "Dera" but this is no contradiction, on the basis of which their statements could be excluded from consideration. Similarly, statement of P.W.3 whereby he said that the respondent was not aware of the sale earlier to sanctioning of mutation, as compared to statement of P.W.5 who said that he was aware of the bargain, it also is no contradiction because P.W.5 had not stated that sale was within his knowledge. The evidence of the respondent amply proved that he on gaining knowledge, immediately performed "Talb-i-Muwathibat" and it being so abrupt, on the next day of the sanctioning of mutation, cannot be doubted. There is no evidence on the file to show that in spite of joint living of the vendor with the respondent, the latter had knowledge of the sale or sanctioning of the mutation. Concealment of sale for a day or so, by the real brother is not out of probability. Be that as it may, without proof, these assertions cannot be made basis of the judgment, to non-suited the respondent who B has otherwise proved his right and discharge of his obligations as required by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. In similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pre-emptor by making immediate Talb-e-Muwathibat and by sending notice of Talb-i-Ishhad within the time fixed by law, for this purpose, sufficiently complies the provisions of the pre-emption Act, in the cases of Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Latif (1999 SCM R 717) and Muhammad Gul v. Muhammad Afzal (1999 SCM R 724).
8. Notices of `Talb-i-Ishhad' (Exh.P.l and Exh.P.2) were dispatched on 25-9-1999 within a week's time after performance of "Talb-i-Muwathibat" which were undeniably received by the petitioner as they responded to those by. Giving reply of the notice (Exh.D.1). These notices have also been proved by P.W.2 to P.W.5 and their receipt by the petitioners is proved by P.W.1.
9. Section 13 of the Pre-emption Act, 1991 requires performance of talabs on receiving information of sale. Similarly, limitation for filing of pre-emption suit, starts from the sale affected through mutation from the date of attestation of mutation, under section 30(b) of the Act, ibid. In view of these provisions, arguments that the respondent himself admitted that he was aware of the bargain, has no substance in it. Every thing was to be done after the sale and its knowledge, so bargain or itsinformation is not relevant. It has already been noted while going through the evidence of the P.Ws that there is no discrepancy in their statements and if at all, there be any, it is not of much significance because parties and the witnesses are illiterate and such minor discrepancies/contradictions are bound to occur by lapse of time, as evidence was recorded after two years of the sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar situation mandated that on the basis of minor discrepancies statements of the witnesses cannot be discarded, in the case of Abdul Qayyum (deceased) through L.R.s v. Mushke-e-Alam and ai,cther (2001 SCM R 798).
10. For what has been discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that Appellate Court has drawn absolutely correct conclusions out of the evidence on the file which is not proved misread or non-read. The Appellate Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity, in absence of which, no interference in revisional jurisdiction is permissible, under law. This revision petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Petitioner dismissed.