' This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala Camp at Wazirabad, whereby while allowing the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-pre-emptor.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of this civil revision are that the plaintiff-pre-emptor filed a suit for possession through preemption in respect of the land fully detailed and described in the plaint. Suit was contested. Controversy gave rise to framing of issues. Parties produced their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. Both the parties preferred appeals. The learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 6-10- 2003 dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Ameen, plaintiff while appeal filed by Atiq-ur- Rehman stands accepted. This civil revision assails the aforesaid judgment and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-emptor has effectively proved performance of Talbs but the learned Appellate Court reversed the judgment of learned trial Court without considering the evidence in its true perspective.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the civil revision and argued that judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well-reasoned and calls for no interference.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The learned Appellate Court non-suited the pre-emptor on account of delay in performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and of Talb-iIshhad. Reasoning given by the Appellate Court was that the sale took place on 17-12-1998. The plaintiff and his witnesses claim acquisition of knowledge one year and 8 months before the date they appeared in the witness-box. If the time period is calculated with reference to one year and 8 months they should have acquired knowledge on 6-4-1999, whereas they performed Talb-i-Muwathibat on 14-4-1999, almost 8 days after acquisition of knowledge. As regard to Talb-i-Ishhad, it was held that clear presumption of knowledge of sale by mutation in Jalsa-i-Aam is presumed, therefore, notice should have been served within a period of 14 days from the date of its sanction on 17-12-1998.
7. As to Talab-i-Muwathibat, P.W.1 and P.W.2 appeared in Court on 6-12-2000. They stated of acquiring knowledge of sale, one year and 8 months ago. The pre-emptor and his witnesses belonged to a village background. Villagers are prone to give estimated time Neither computerized treatment can be given nor their statements are to be weighed with mathematical precision. On acquisition of knowledge, Talbi-Muwathibat was performed. Calculation made by the learned Appellate Court is, too, technical to be given any weight.
8. Notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was posted on 15-4-1999. Knowledge was claimed on 6-4-1999.
Presumption of mutation sanctioned in Jalsa-iAam cannot be raised in absence of any independent evidence. Saghir Ahmad, D.W.1 is father of the vendee. Ghulam Hussain, D.W.2 is father of vendor, Khushi Muhammad. Neither the revenue officials nor Abid Hussain, Lambardar Deh or Mehr Abdul Rashid, Pattidar of the village was produced to prove entry and sanction of mutation, in Deh. The pre- B emptor's evidence fully proved performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat on acquisition of knowledge and dispatch of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad.
9. For what has been discussed above, by allowing this civil revision, the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. The pre- emptor is directed to deposit Rs,8,00,000 decretal amount excluding Zar-i-Soyam (already deposited) within a period of one month from today, failing which his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed, automatically.