' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails the judgments and decrees dated 6- 6-1997 and 3-8-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal, whereby the suit and appeal of the petitioners was dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the sale of land measuring 23 Kanals and 2 Marlas detailed in the plaint effected through Mutations Nos.180 and 181, dated 26-12-1992 for an amount of Rs.1,01,000. Superior preemptive right was claimed as "Shafi Khalit". The petitioner averred in his plaint that he came to know about the sale in dispute on 19-4-1993 and on gaining knowledge he immediately exclaimed his intention of getting the land through preemption as his right was superior qua the respondents and thereafter through a notice dated 21-4-1993 attested by 2 truthful witnesses, sent to the respondents under registered postal cover acknowledgement due, he performed "Talb-e-Ishhad" and by filing the suit, he fulfilled the requirement of "Talb-e-Khasumat".
3. The respondents being defendant in the suit, contested it, by filing their written statement wherein they raised certain preliminary objections denying performance of Talbs by the petitioner, refuted his claim of superior pre-emptive right. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge who was seized of the matter after doing the needful vide his judgment and decree dated 6-6-1997 dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3-8-2000. The petitioner thereafter, filed the instant revision petition which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record, has now been placed for final determination. The respondents after their service were represented through their counsel Ch. Anwar ul Haq Punnu whose name has appeared in the daily cause list of this Court but none has appeared on their behalf to defend this petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the "Talbsi.e.-Muwathibat" and "Ishhad" were not only performed but where duly proved by evidence on the file but a contrary view taken by the two Courts below, runs counter ,to the evidence on the file. It was further contended that the petitioner on gaining of knowledge instantly expressed his intention of pre-empting the sale, exerting his superior pre-emptive right and his assertion was proved by the witnesses produced by him. Likewise, he submitted that service of notice of "Talb-e-Ishhad" on the respondent was proved by examining P.W.1 whose statement has not been properly appreciated by two Courts below while returning findings on Issue No.12.
7. I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner land have examined the record, appended herewith with his assistance. The petitioner in para.4 of his plaint narrated that the sale came to his knowledge on 19-4-1993 in presence of Muhammad Jamil son of Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Aslam son of Ilyas and Ghulam Rasul son of Abdul Razaq. No time or place of knowledge or Majlis in which he gained the knowledge was mentioned in the plaint. He himself appeared as P.W.2 and deposed that Muhammad Jamil informed him on 19-4-1993 regarding the sale. The petitioner in his statement, as well, did not mention time and place of gaining of knowledge and in addition to averments in the plaint he stated that information was conveyed by Muhammad Jamil P.W.3. Muhammad Jamil though stated that he informed the petitioner regarding the sale yet he contrary to averments in the plaint and statement of P.W.2 deposed that he conveyed this information to the petitioner at this tubewell. P.W.4 is son of the petitioner (Ghulam Rasul son of Abdur Razzaq), who also made an improved statement, as compared to the case set up in the plaint, by deposing that he along with his father and Muhammad Aslam Lumberdar were sitting at their tubewell when Muhammad Jamil came there and informed about the sale on which his father immediately expressed intention of preempting the same. The statement of all these P.Ws. Demonstrated that the petitioner attempted to improve his case during the evidence and besides the fact that one of the witnesses is the real son, he did not examine Muhammad Aslam Lumberdar who was stated by all the P.Ws. To be present at the time of gaining of knowledge by the petitioner. The scan of evidence shows that story of making of "Talb-e-Muwathibat" was subsequently fabricated and for this reason all the necessary information was not incorporated in the plaint. Contradiction in the statement of the P.Ws. Are also material and negatively reflected on the claim of the petitioner regarding the performance of "Tabl-e-Muwathibat". The petitioner did not mention the time and place of performance of "Talb-e- Muwathibat" in his plaint which is now a necessary requirement in view of the latest alighted judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315).
8. One of the respondents appeared as D.W.1 (Ghulam Mustafa) who in support of his averment in the written statement, stated that mutation in question was sanctioned in the Havaili of the petitioner, in his presence but he did not make any "Talb-e-Muwathibat". Besides it, sanctioning of mutation in a public meeting, its notice to public at large is to be presumed, unless and until notice under section 32 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 is denied to have been given in the prescribed manner. The petitioner did not assert in his notice of "Talb-e-Ishhad" or in the plaint that the sale was effected secretly and the provisions of section 32 of the Act (ibid) were not fulfilled by the official attesting the mutation. This failure goes to lend support to the stances of the respondent of sanctioning mutation in the Havaili of the petitioner, and also at the same time, it will create a presumption that the petitioner was aware of sanctioning of mutation from the very Ist day as held in the judgments in the cases of Rahim Dad and 3 others v. Abdul Kareem and 3 others (1992 MLD 2111), Ghulam Ali Shah and another v. Abbas Ali and 5 others (1995 CLC 1977) and Sher Muhammad and others v. Fateh Muhammad (1999 CLC 846).
9. Coming to the performance of "Talbe-Ishhad" the petitioner examined P.W.1 Muhammad Siddique, Branch Postmaster, who deposed that registered Letter No.449 dated 5-5-1993 in the name of Ghulam Mustafa was not delivered and registered Letter No.448 dated 5-5-1993 in the name of Muhammad Tariq was served. According to him Ghulam Mustafa respondent was out of village whereas, the letter in the name of Muhammad Tariq was delivered on 27-5-1993 by keeping the letter with him till 27-5-1993. He further deposed that the A.D. Receipt (Exh.P.2) was thumb- marked by Muhammad Tariq. At the close of evidence of the petitioner copied of the 2 notices Exh.P.9 and Dch.P.10 were tendered in evidence in the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Record shows that the original notice one of whom according to the petitioner was delivered to Muhammad Tariq-respondent and the other in the name of Ghulam Mustafa-respondent, was received back undelivered, were not brought on record through notice to produce document or by opening envelope received back, as noted above. Under law a document has to be proved by producing original which was to be confronted to the marginal witnesses of the same but neither any notice to the respondents was issued to produce the original notice nor on their refusal, any application for secondary evidence was moved. The notices were not confronted to the witnesses who had allegedly attested those notices. It is also not proved that the registered letter dispatched through postal receipt, really contained the notice or empty envelopes were sent to the respondents. Be that as it may, since, the original notices were not produced on the record and were not proved; by the marginal witnesses, I am of the view that performance of "Talb-eIshhad" was not proved. My this view is fortified by a chain of judgments in the case of Muhammad Rafiq v. Ghulam Murtaza (1998 MLD 292), Fateh Muhammad and 2 others v. Gulsher (2000 CLC 409), Hayatullah Jan and others v. Jan Alam and others (2003 MLD 625) and Ghulam Abbas v. Manzoor Ahmad and another (PLD 2004 Lahore 125) laying down that in absence of original notice of "Talb-e-Ishhad", the same is not proved.
10. For what has been discussed above, I have no hesitation to hold that both the Courts below returned their findings strictly in consonance with the evidence which has neither been misread or non-read and at the same time they have not committed any illegality or irregularity, in absence of which no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible under law. This revision has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.