' This civil revision assails judgments and decrees, dated 13-7-2003 and 11-7-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Pasrur, District Sialkot, deciding lis against the petitioners, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against sale of 11 Kanals, 19 Marlas of land detailed in the plaint, effected through Mutation No.2083, dated 28-2-1997, for an amount of Rs.50,000 in favour of the respondent. The petitioners claim their superior pre-emptive rights as "Shafi Sharik" and asserted to have gained knowledge of the sale on 30-3-1997 at 5-00 p.m. At the house of Muhammad Yasin one of the petitioners where they immediately exclaimed their intention of pre-empting it and in this manner claimed to have performed "Talb-i-Muwathibat". They also pleaded in their plaint that they by sending a notice attested by two truthful witnesses, on 31-3-1997 performed "Talb-i-Ishhad" and thereafter by filing the suit in hand, fulfilled the requirement of "Talb-eKhusumat".
3. The respondent being defendant in the suit denied the assertions in the plaint by filing his written statement wherein he raised certain preliminary objections concerning cause of action, under valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction and regarding claim of incidental charges. On merits, performance of Talbs by 'the petitioners were specifically denied and it was claimed that they have no superior preemptive right. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful, vide its judgment and decree, dated 13-7-2002 dismissed the suit of the petitioners holding that they could not prove performance of Talbs in accordance with section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and thus extinguished their right, if any.
4. The petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as it was dismissed on 11-7-2003. They have now come up in revisional jurisdiction of this Court seeking annulment of concurrent judgments and decrees. The respondent in response to pre-admission notice by this Court, is represented through his counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the three P.'W.s. Had clearly deposed performance of Talbs by the petitioners' abruptly and thus, they substantially discharged onus placed on their shoulders. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they had proved their superior pre-emptive right which has also been recognized by the two Courts below.
Reliance was placed on judgments in the cases of Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another (1992 SCM R 1886), Gul Hussain Shah v. Mulazim Hussain Shah (1996 SCM R 294) and Abdul Qayyum v.
Muhammad Rafiq 2001 SCM R 1651. It was argued that consultation and giving a thought by the pre-emptor on gaining knowledge of the sale, for few minutes while sitting in the same Mujlis is not fatal to the pre-emption suit. He also contends that both the Courts below have wrongly non- suited the petitioners whereas they had fulfilled all the requirements of the law.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted the assertions of the petitioners, supported the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and argued that the petitioners evidence brought to prove "Talb-i- Muwathibat" is self-contradictory and shows that it was created to substantiate their false claim. He further submits that none of the witnesses produced by the petitioners were confronted with the alleged notice of "Talb-i-Ishhad7 allegedly given by them and in this,manner it was said that the petitioners could not prove performance of Talbs in accordance with law and they extinguished their pre-emptive right, if any. He further submits that the petitioners' pending suit, exchanged their entire holdings of 12- Marlas with the land of some other village and were not owners in the village in question, at the time of decision of the suit, hence, their suit could not have been decreed.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. There is no cavil about the proposition that a preemptor gaining knowledge of the sale can have a pause while sitting in the same `Majlis' and can also consult the persons sitting there and this interval between the knowledge and making of "Talb-iMuwathibat", cannot alone deprive him of his pre-emptive right but in the case in hand, even if we ignore statement of P.W.3 whereby he had stated that the petitioners took 15/20 minutes in consultation to make "Talb-i-Muwathibat" statements of P.W.1 Muhammad Saleem and P.W.2 Qamar Zaman are not only contradictory to each other but are also enough to demolish petitioners' own case set up in the plaint. P.W.1 stated that he gained knowledge of the sale at the house of Yasin in Daska city whereas P.W.2 deposed that they received information at his house at 5-00 p.m. Meaning thereby that according to P.W.1 information was received at the house of Muhammad Yasin petitioner No.2 whereas according to P.W.2 it was received at a different place i.e. At his house. P.W.3 is students of Muhammad Saleem, petitioner No.1, and thus, being under his dictates, cannot be termed as an independent witnesses.
8. Similarly, none of the witnesses deposed that the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was written at the instance of the petitioners and wbs, sent/dispatched to the respondent undr t'heir signatures/thumb-impressions neither notice was confronted to them nor they referred to it while in the witness-box. I have also examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to transfer through exchange of ownership by the petitioners, through a registered exchange deed, dated 11-4-1998 which contains a recital in the opening line of its page 4 that the petitioners have given out their entire holding of 12 Marlas in Khata No.12 to Irshad Ali etc. With their land situated in another village namely, Budyana, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. This document shows that the petitioners were not owners in the village in question at the time of decision of the suit by the trial Court and as such, were not entitled to the relief claimed.
9. For what has been discussed above, it is obvious that both the Courts below have returned findings which are absolutely in consonance with the evidence on the file which has neither been misread nor non-read. They have not committed any illegality or irregularity in 'concluding the lis, in absence of which no interference is called for, in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under law.
This revision petition has no merit in it and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.