' This single judgment shall also decide Civil Revision No,87 of 2002 and Civil Revision No,88 of 2002 titled Fazal -ur-Rehman v. Mst. Nawedi Jan because common question of law is involved in all the three.
2. In this case Fazal-ur-Rehman purchased suit property through Mutation No,595, dated 28-2-1996 for a sum of Rs,45,000. In the connected Civil Revision No,87 of 2002 the petitioner purchased the suit property on the same date for Rs,5,000 and in the third Civil Revision No,88 of 2002 the suit property was purchased through Mutation No,596 on the same date. All the three transactions were pre-empted by the respondent-plaintiff through Suits Nos.195/1, 194/1 and 536/1. The first two suits were instituted on 22-5-1996 while the third one on 25-11-1996 which were contested by the petitioner. Out of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed, trial was held and at the conclusion of the, trial the suits were dismissed on 21st march, 2002 by the learned Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad on the proposition that the statements of the witnesses (P.W.3 and P.W.4) regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat were inconsistent, thus plaintiff has failed to prove the making of Talbs according to the requirement of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1986.
3. The said judgments and decrees were impugned in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court on the issue of Talbs and held that the pre-emptor and vendees having equal right of pre-emption are entitled in equal share to the suit and the both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were made according td the requirements of section 13 and that the trial Court has misread or non-read the evidence to that effect.
4. Evidence on record particularly of the witnesses to the making of Talbs by the pre-emptor, excepting minor discrepancies of negligible nature is consistent on the point that as soon as the pre-emptor was informed she made Talb-i-Muwathibat without any amount of delay. Suit mutations were attested on 28-2-1996 in the two suits and on 15-8-1996 in the third suit while suits were instituted on 22-5-1996 and 25-11-1996 respectively and there is no evidence that the plaintiff has either waived her right of pre-emption. The view taken by the trial Court was that because plaintiff did not appear to give evidence but such evidence was given by her attorney (son) and making of Talbs being personal act attorney was not competent to depose to that effect have been rightly reversed by the appeal Court on the strength of the provisions of section 15 of the Pre- emption Act permitting the pre-emptor to make all the three demands including the institution of the suit through agent or guardian.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to the issue of Talbs alone and contended that the two witnesses while appearing in Court were inconsistent on material points.
He was asked to point out the inconsistency rendering the testimony of the witnesses of Talbs unbelievable and unacceptable he referred to some portion of the evidence given by the witnesses of the Talbs but on close scrutiny it is found that the inconsistency claimed by the learned counsel is not of the nature to disbelieve them regarding the making of Talbs by the respondent-plaintiff.
6. The suit transaction were effected in the case in the year 1996 while the witnesses of Talbs appeared in the Court and gave evidence on 14-3-2000 after about more than 4 years. It has been held by the apex Court that minor discrepancies cannot be made ground for dismissal of suit on the point of Talbs which view was followed by this Court in the case of Yar Muhammad Khan v.
Bashir Ahmed PLD 2003 Pesh.
179.
7. It is judicially noticed that witnesses appearing after lapse of considerable period while deposing in Court are bound to contract each other on minor points because human faculty of memory is subject to faultering besides the testimony of witnesses inter se is always found to be of varying nature because after a lapse of such sufficient time they are not expected to give hundred per cent accurate statement on each and every minor point having taken place in their presence.
Courts have always leaned in favour of ignoring such minor discrepancies. The rule laid down in the cited case has been correctly followed by the learned Court of appeal which no exception could be taken.
8. For what has been discussed above all these three petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs because the judgments of the appeal Court do not suffer from such infirmity or inconsistency which could be made basis for dismissal of the suit and the trial Court was wrong in holding the contrary view. Order accordingly.