' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners have called in question judgment and decree dated 21-2-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot dismissing petitioner preemptor's suit for possession through preemption and judgment and decree dated 10- 7-2001 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot dismissing petitioner's appeal there-against.
2. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e, Allah Lok filed his suit for possession through pre- emption against the present respondents claiming superior right of pre-emption to pre-empt the sale transaction executed through a registered sale-deed dated 26-6-1995. Superior right was claimed for being "Shareek-e-Khata" as co-owner and real brother of the vendor. In para.3 of the plaint, the petitioner Allah Lok pleaded that he acquired knowledge of the sale transaction on 14-8- 1995 at 1-00 p.m. At his Dera and he immediately thereupon exercised his right of Talb-i- Muwathibat. He further pleaded that on 15-8-1995, he obtained the certified copies of the sale- deed and thereafter on 21-8-1995 served the notice of Talb-iIshhad through registered A.D. Mail in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondent vendees filed contesting written statement.
The learned trial Court whereupon framed 8 issues. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court thereupon rendered his judgment on issue No,6 relating to Talbs against the petitioner pre-emptor and thus dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 21-2-2000.
On petitioner's appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge recorded his concurrent findings of facts on the question of Talbs and thus through judgment and decree dated 10-7-2001 dismissed petitioner's appeal. Hence the present civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, despite concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners, read out the pleadings of the parties and the entire evidence of the petitioners to contend that the learned Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction in ignoring the important evidence of P.Ws. And also that evidence was misread. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners in para. 3 of the plaint as well as notice of Talb-iIshhad had given identical story with no contradiction and the same was supported by the P.Ws.
' Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees by contending that the petitioner pre-emptor failed to prove the acquisition of knowledge on the date, time and place as pleaded in the plaint and also failed to state in the plaint the names of the witnesses in whose presence the purported knowledge was acquired and Talb-iMuwathibat was, made. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the material contradictions in evidence as well as in the pleadings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. I am conscious that in exercise of revisional powers, this Court should not normally re-examine the evidence on the questions of facts, if the learned Courts below rendered concurrent findings of facts and expressed their consensus opinion in their respective judgments. However, in view of the reading of the pleadings as well as evidence by the learned counsel for the A parties, I exercised my discretion to reexamine the entire record to determine as to whether the learned Courts below had omitted to consider any relevant and important piece of evidence or that they had committed any misreading of evidence.
5. The scrutiny of record reveals that the learned Courts below have thoroughly and properly analyzed the evidence as well as pleadings of the parties. Their judgments and decrees were based upon due and proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence. The judgments rendered by them discussed the issues threadbare.
6. An additional fact in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners was that the knowledge was claimed by the petitioners on 14-8-1995 from P.W.2 and P.W.3. Although names of P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not mentioned in the pleadings, yet Allah Lok while appearing as P.W.4 to support his own case, stated in the cross-examination that informers to sale were P.W.2 and P.W.3.
Allah Lok clearly and categorically stated that he was informed of the sale transaction exactly 1-3/4 years ago. The purported informer i.e, P.W.2, Muhammad Afzal son of Barkat deposed in the first line in his examination-in-chief that it was about "1-3/4 years before" that he informed the petitioner about the sale. P.W.3 made no statement as to the date of information passed on by him to the petitioner regarding the sale transaction.
7. Importantly, statements of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded on the same date and day i.e, 29-5-1997. Thus calculating backwards, the purported date of acquisition of knowledge comes to 29-8-1995. The pleadings in the plaint and the statement in the alleged notice of Talbi-Ishhad mentions the day and date of knowledge as 14-8-1995. This wide gap has not been explained or bridged by any of the P.Ws. In their depositions. It is by now well-settled that a pre-emptor has to strictly prove the date, time and place of acquisition of knowledge and exercise of Talb-i- Muwathibat.
8. In the present case, there is a major discrepancy in the date of knowledge pleaded in the plaint and stated in the depositions by P.Ws.
9. Under these circumstances, I do not find any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the learned Courts below, who have rendered their judgments on this question of fact in due and proper exercise of their jurisdiction. In view thereof this petition is dismissed.