' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner (herein) had filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against defendant-respondent on a sale of land measuring 4 Kanals and 16 Marlas sanctioned in favour of the vendee-defendant, through a mutation of sale dated 12-9-1990 for a, consideration of Rs.4,20,000, claiming to be the superior right of pre-emption being co-sharer in the Khata in dispute, averring that he had performed the requirements of Talbs as contained in section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. The suit was contested by the respondent who filed his written statement, raising some preliminary objections, alleging that the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements of Talbs. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame various issues. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-4-1992 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who vide, impugned and decree dated 18- 10-1995 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only contested the findings of the Courts below on Issue No.3 with regard to the fulfilment of Talbs.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record.
4. The plaintiff-petitioner appeared as P.W. 2 and in examination-in-chief he had not deposed that when he received information about the sale in dispute and in whose presence he declared his intention to pre-empt the suit property. Muhammad Arshad P.W.1 had also not uttered a single word with regard to the making of Talb-eMuwathibat by the plaintiff. No other evidence was produced by the petitioner to establish the first demand of pre-emption which is a jumping demand and it is settled law that as soon as the pre-emptor comes to know about the sale he would declare his intention immediately to pre-empt the suit-land.
5. It is settled proposition of law that if jumping demand is not proved by the plaintiff, the second demand i.e. Talb-iIshhad if proved would not give any benefit to him because, if a litigant failed to perform all the three requirements of Talbs, he would not be entitled for the grant of decree for pre- emption as held in cases of Rana Muhammad Tufail v. Munir Ahmad and another PLD 2001 SC 13; Muhammad Hassan v. Shafiuddin PLD 1995 Quetta 29; Salama v. Manzur Hussain 1996 CLC 623; Dilmeer and others v. Amir NLR 1996 Civil Lahore 627 and Mst. Amir v. Soini 1997 MLD Lahore 2376.
6 . From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to establish on record all the three requirements of Talbs in accordance with the prescribed procedure as provided in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and both the Courts below have concurrently arrived at this conclusion. There is a question of fact involved in the matter, which would not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as it cannot re- appreciate or reexamine the evidence of the parties even if it can take a different view. In this context, reference can be made to the cases of Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCMR 2099; Nazir Hussain v. Boota 1989 SCMR 450 and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
7.. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs.