JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioner/defendant impugns the appellant decree dated 19.1.2002 whereby the decree of the learned Trial Court dated 25.1.2001 was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption was decreed. 2.
The learned' Trial Court had held that the respondent had failed to prove the requirements of statutory talabs and had also failed to establish his superior right of pre-emption. On both these issues, the findings of the learned Trial Court were reversed by the learned Appellate Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the testimony of the respondent's witnesses. The case set up by the respondent in his plaint was that he received information of the sale in question on 25.6.1996 and made talb-e-muwathibat on the same date. The witness to the talb-e-ishhad namely, Aurangzeb (PW-5) and the plaintiff as his own witness have stated that the notice of talb-e-ishhad was made and signed on the date of the filing of the suit. The suit having been filed on 14.7.1996 it would be clear that the notice of talb-e-ishhnd was beyond the period of 14 days prescribed in the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. The learned Appellate Court has noted that the statements of the witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff are ambiguous. Despite recording this observation it has proceeded to surmise that the witnesses apparently got confused. There is no basis for this conjecture because the statements noted above were quite unambiguous. The same were also in conflict with the earlier part of the testimony of PW-5 and the respondent/plaint. Considering the testimony of the witnesses there was no occasion to disregard such testimony and to rely on the testimony of the postal staff.
5 At this juncture it is useful to note the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act which require the witnesses of the notice of talb-e-ishhad to be truthful. The qualification obviously has also not been met by the witnesses produced by the respondent/plaintiff.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the respondent /plaintiff failed to fulfill the requirements of law relating to talb-e-isshad. The appellant decree is, therefore, not legally sustainable. The same is set aside and, as a result. The decree of the learned Trial Court dated 25.1.2001 stands restored.
Civil .