' The brief resume of the case is that Saifur Rehman, plaintiff-respondent (herein) had instituted a suit for pre-emption through a sale of land measuring 4 Kanals, 1 Marla, situated in Squares Nos.186 and 187, Khewat No,586, Khatoni No,1131 to 1133, in Mauza Jatri Kohna Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, transferred through a Mutation of Sale No,2766, dated 20-8-1999 for a consideration of Rs,84,000 in favour of Wali Muhammad defendant-petitioner (herein). The plaintiff claimed his superior right of pre-emption as co-sharer in the Khata of land in dispute, alleging that to defeat his superior right of pre-emption, a fictitious sale price of Rs,1,25,000 had been entered in the transaction. The suit was contested by the defendant-vendee, who filed his written statement, raising some preliminary objections and from the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties the trial Court led to frame the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption against the defendant? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has made Talbs in accordance with law? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession through pre-emption as prayed for?
OPP
(4) Whether the sale price has been mentioned incorrectly, if so, what is the ostensible sale price of the suit property? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(7) Whether the suit is under-valued for the purpose of court-fee, if so, what is the real valuation of the suit? OPP
(8) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is false and mala fide, if so, whether the defendant is entitled to recover special cost under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD
(10) Relief.
2. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2001 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff- respondent (herein). Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendant-petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court/learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, vide, judgment and decree, dated 5-3-2002 accepted the appeal of defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Revision Petition No,517 of 2002 in this Court and the same was accepted vide judgment, dated 14- 6-2002 and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court. After remand, the lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 19-11-2002 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner; maintaining the findings of the trial Court which has been assailed through the present revision petition by Wali Muhammad, defendant vendee/petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses of plaintiff and the plaintiff-respondent failed to establish the requirement of Talbs. Further contended that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are natural variation which a human-being in the ordinary course of business would certainly make. Further added that both the Courts below gave concurrent findings of fact on question of performance pf demand of Talbs and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere. He relied on cases of Abdul Hakim v.
Habibullah 1997 SCM R 1139, Sh. Muhammad Bashir Ali v. Sufi Ghulam Mohyuddin 1996 SCM R 813 and Abdul Qayyum v. Mushke Alam 2001 SCM R 798.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. The question that boils down for determination in this case as contested by learned counsel for the petitioner is that whether the plaintiff has performed the Talbs in accordance with law. The plaintiff in paragraph No,2 of this plaint mentioned that he was informed about the sale in dispute by Muhammad Arshad son of. Rulya on 31-8-1999 while he was sitting in the Dera during evening time and he in the presence of Abdul Sattar son of Umer Din and Abdul Sattar son of Nizam Din witnesses declared his intention to pre-empt the suit-land immediately. He further mentioned in para. 4 of his plaint that he sent notice to vendee of Talb-e-Ishhad on 4-9-1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that there are material contradictions in the statement of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7. He pointed out that Muhammad Arshad P.W.4 deposed that he informed the plaintiff while he was sitting with Abdul Sattar son of Umer Din and Abdul Sattar son of Nizam Din in his house. He further pointed out that in his cross-examination, this witness had stated that while he informed the plaintiff, he was sitting in his Haveli and he had not established his Dera in his land.
Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W.5, Abdul Sattar son of Umer Din, wherein, in examination-in-chief, he deposed that he was sitting in the Dera of Saifur Rehman at about 4/5 p.m. When Muhammad Arshad told the plaintiff/Saif-ur-Rehman about the sale in dispute.
7. The evidence of the plaintiff emerges that his witnesses stated that place where he was sitting.
Somewhere, it was stated that he (the plaintiff) was sitting in Dera and somewhere it was stated that he was sitting in Haveli. The plaintiff himself had appeared as his own witness as P.W.7 also stating that he was sitting in his Dera. Here, the question arose, that whether "Dera" and "Haveli" are two different places or it is one. The words, Dera and Haveli have not been defined in Pre-emption Act, 1913 or Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act has provided that "Talb-e-Muwathibat" means, immediate demand by a pre-emptor in the meeting or sitting (Majlis) in which he has come to know about the sale, declaring his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption. It would mean that the pre-emptor has to establish only the making of immediate demand (jumping demand) made in the presence of the people (witnesses) while he was sitting at any place. The plaintiff has categorically deposed in his plaint as well as in his statement that he was sitting in his Dera. When the word is not defined in the relevant statute/law, we have to take help from the Dictionary.
8. In Urdu Dictionary {{URDU TEXT}} Al-Haj Maulvi Feroz-ud-din, the word "Dera" is defined as {{URDU TEXT}}
9. In Composite Dictionary, the word "Dera" has been defined as "dwelling" whereas in the said dictionary the word Haveli has been defined as mansion; and spacious house. From the above, it means that the word used by the, witnesses as Dera and Haveli are not distinguishable. These denote the dwelling, residents/house of the plaintiff-pre-emptor. This argument is further supported by the statement of P.W.4 Muhammad Arshad who in cross-examination by the counsel for the petitioner had categorically deposed that plaintiff was sitting in his. Haveli and he has not constructed or established any Dera in his land. From these statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, it is manifestly clear that when the plaintiff came into his knowledge about the sale in dispute he was present in his house. The Dera and Haveli are not different places than, the house of the plaintiff, hence the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material discrepancies in the statements of plaintiff's witnesses, deposing different places, informing him about the sale in dispute being misconceived is repelled.
10. Furthermore, pointed out discrepancies were natural variations which a human being in the ordinary course of business would certainly make, as such the same do not in any way detract from the veracity of such evidence. The memory of each and every human being is not the same and such pointed out discrepancies were ignored by the Courts below. In case of Abdul Qayum, referred to above, the Honourable Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan have observed that where appraisal of evidence undertaken by the lower Appellate Court was perfectly in accordance with the principles settled by the superior Courts in civil cases and the same did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the same could not be interfered with by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. By taking different views of evidence and raising inferences of its own.
' In case of Abdul Hakeem (supra) the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have observed that the Courts below while decreeing the plaintiff's suit on the basis of evidence on record neither committed any misreading of evidence nor omitted from consideration any material piece of evidence on record nor appreciation of evidence by them could be described as perverse, so as to warrant interference by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. In this context, further reference can be made to the cases of Sheikh Muhammad Bashir Ali (supra) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I find that this Court does not find itself inclined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The civil revision has no merit and is hereby, ,dismissed with no order as to costs.