' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This direct appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 3- 3-2005 passed by a learned Judge in chamber in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in revisional jurisdiction, in a pre-emption matter.
2. The essential facts for disposal of this appeal in the background are that land measuring 46 Kanals, 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Wazirke Chatta Tehsil Wazirabad District Gujranwala, was purchased by the appellants vide Mutation No,239 dated 28-12-1998 against which Muhammad Amin, respondent herein, having claimed superior right of pre-emption firstly on the ground of co- owner in the land and secondly, owner of the adjacent land with common source of irrigation, instituted a suit for pre-emption in the civil Court at Gujranwala on 28-4-1999. The plaintiff/respondent asserted in the plaint that he on coming to know about the transaction of sale through Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Suleman on 14-4-1999, at his dara there and then announced for the exercise of right of pre-emption in performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and on the next day sent a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad under registered cover to the appellants (vendees). The suit was resisted by the appellants on various grounds but the main contest was regarding non- performance of Talbs in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. The learned trial Judge, having come to the conclusion that Talbs were performed in accordance with law, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 3-1-2002 but a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, camp at Wazirabad, in appeal filed by the present appellants, vide judgment dated 6-10-2003 reversed the findings of the trial Court on the issue of Talbs and dismissed the suit. The judgment of the appellate Court was assailed by the respondent before the Lahore High Court in a civil revision and a learned Judge in chambers in the High Court vide impugned judgment, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court.
3. The appellants at the first instance, filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment but subsequently realizing the legal position regarding the maintainability of direct appeal, withdrew the civil petition and filed the present appeal, after the expiry of the normal period of limitation provided under the law for filing such an appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that dueto the bona fide mistake, the appellants initially filed a petition for special leave to appeal but later, after withdrawing the same filed this appeal therefore, the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and the same may be condoned in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent, has not been able to show us that the appellants were negligent in not filing the appeal within the time or that the filing of the civil petition was not in good faith or it being not a bona fide mistake, F would not be considered a valid ground for condonation of delay. In the light of the explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellants and circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal, it appears that the delay was not intentional and deliberate rather it was result of the bona fide mistake and consequently, we condone the same and proceed to decide this appeal on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that without fulfillment of the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad would be meaningless, and unless the first Talb is proved to the satisfaction of requirement of law, the performance of second Talb has no significance. The learned counsel has argued that in pre-emption suit the plaintiff is under heavy burden to prove the performance of Talbs in accordance with the law to exercise the right of pre-emption but in the present case, the respondent has not been able to bring on record any convincing evidence of performance of Talb-iMuwathibat and consequently Talb-i-Ishhad was also not proved in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no cavil to the proposition that the performance of Talbs is an essential prerequisite for exercise of right of pre-emption and it is the requirement of law to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat immediately on acquiring knowledge of sale whereas Talb-i-Ishhad is made within 14 days of the date of making Talb-i-Muwathibat in the manner as provided in section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, but it is not essential for the pre-emptor to prove the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat with reference to the specific date and place rather proof of a tentative date of performance of the first Talb would be sufficient to fulfil the requirement of second Talb with reference to the said date of exercise of right of preemption and in support thereof, placed reliance on Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani (2000 SCM R 329).
6. For the purpose of appreciation of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to examine the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which provides as under:- "13.Demand of pre-emption.---(1) The right of pre-emption ofa person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands of pre-emption in the following order, namely:--
(a) Talb-i-Muwathibat;
(b) Talb-i-Ishhad; and
(c) Talb-i-Khusumat.
Explanations.
I. "Talb-i-Muwathibat" means immediate demand by a preemptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre- emption.
' Note. Any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption are sufficient. II. "Talb-i- Ishhad" means demand by establishing evidence, III. Talb-i-Khusumat" means demand by filing a suit.
(2) Where the fact of sale comes within the knowledge of a preemptor through any source, he shall make Talb-i-Muwathibat.
(3) Where a pre-emptor has made Talb-i-Muwathibat under subsection (2), he shall as soon thereafter as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge make Talb-iIshhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgement due to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of preemption: ' Provided that in areas where due to lack of post office facilities it is not possible for the pre-emptor to give registered notice, he may make Talb-i-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses.
(4) Where a pre-emptor has satisfied the requirements of Talb-iMuwathibat under subsection (2) and Talb-i-Ishhad under subsection (3), he shall make Talb-i-Khusumat in the Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his right of pre-emption."
7. The legal position emerged is that right of pre-emption cannot be claimed without fulfillment of the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad and performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat is prerequisite for the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad. The first Talb is Talb-i-Muwathibat which is immediate demand for exercise of right of pre-emption in the sitting or meeting in which the pre- emptor comes to know about the sale and without proving the performance of first Talb, the requirement of second Talb namely Talb-i-Ishhad even if fulfilled, is of no consequence.The essential condition to fulfil Talb-i-Muwathibat is that pre-emptor must declare his intention for exercise of right of pre-emption in presence of witnesses immediately on coming to know about the sale and the performance of the first Talb, cannot be proved unless pre-emptor A proves through positive evidence the specific date on which he on coming to know about the sale, made declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption. This is settled law that Talb-i-Muwathibat is the foundation for exercise of right of pre-emption but there is difference of opinion on the question regarding the manner of proving the requirement of this Talb. The one view is that proof of tentative date of knowledge of sale is sufficient to fulfil the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat whereas according to other view without proof of specific date of knowledge, the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat is not performed and in consequence thereto, the performance of Talb-i- Ishhad is also not fulfilled in terms of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. In view thereof, the crucial question for determination would be whether without proof of particular date of knowledge of sale, the prformance of Talb-i-Muwathibat with reference to a tentative date would be sufficient to serve the purpose of law or the date of knowledge of sale and the Majlis in which pre-emptor made a declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption must be specifically proved. In Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani (2000 SCM R 329), this Court held that performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat may not be essentially proved with reference to the specific date and time or place and the Majlis in which the exercise of right of pre-emption was announced but in the subsequent judgments in Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315); Muhammad Siddique v.
Muhammad Sharif (2005 SCM R 1231); Abdul Qayyum through L.Rs, v. Muslik-eAlam and another (2001 SCMR 298) and Civil Appeal No,560 of 1995 (Zarghoon Shah (deceased) through L.Rs, v.
Muhammad Yaqoob Khan) and Civil Petitions Nos.424 and 528 of 2004 (Fazal Subhan v. Mst. Sahib Jamala) it was consistently held that requirement of making Talb-iMuwathibat without the proof of the date and the meeting in which declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption was made, would not be fulfilled. This is settled proposition of law that the pre-emptor without satisfying the performance of Talbs in accordance with the requirement of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, cannot succeed and unless it is established on record the specific date of knowledge of sale and the Majlis in which the declaration was made for exercise of right of B pre-emption, the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat is not fulfilled and if the first Talb is not proved to have been made in accordance with law, the performance of second Talb (Talb-i-Ishhad) also cannot be proved. The right of pre-emption is a piratical right and the pre-emptor must prove the essential conditions for exercise of such right strictly in accordance with law.
8. The pre-emptor id the present case pleaded the knowledge of sale on 14-4-1999 in the plaint but in his statement in the Court he stated in general terms that he having acquired the knowledge of sale about eight months prior to the date of making the statement, fulfilled the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat and also sent notice of Talb-i-Ishhad on the next day of making Talb-i- Muwathibat. The pre-emptor thus without proving the specific date of making Talb-i-Muwathibat claimed performance of both the Talbs on the basis of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad.
9. The pre-emptor in addition to his own statement, also placed reliance on the statement of two witnesses namely Abdul Aziz (P.W.2) and Sattar (P.W.3) who have also in general terms stated that about oneyear and eight months ago, they on coming to know of the sale, informed the pre-emptor and he in their presence, there and then, made anannouncement for the exercise of right of pre-emption. In rebuttal,Saghir Hussain vendee and his father in their cross-examination denying the claim of pre-emptor of performance of Talbs as per requirement oflaw, stated that at the time of sanction of mutation in the village an announcement was made on loud-speaker of the village mosque regarding the transaction of sale and that all concerned, including the pre-emptor had direct knowledge of mutation much before his making of declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption. In the light of the evidence of the parties, the assertion of the vendee that it was not a secret transaction of sale and the pre-emptor having knowledge of the mutation of sale much before making declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption, has not been able to substantiate his claim of making Talbi- Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the requirement of law, is not without substance. The detail examination of the evidence would unambiguously suggest that the pre- emptor having not been able to prove the particular date of knowledge of sale, has not been able to discharge the burden of proving the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 to succeed in the suit for preemption.
10. The learned Judge in the High Court reversed the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate Court on question of performance of Talbs through reappraisal of evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction without pointing out any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence or that the conclusion drawn by the appellate Court was contrary to the law. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case .Or the conclusion drawn therein 'is perverse or contrary to the law but the interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter, is not possible in revisional jurisdiction. There is a difference between them is reading, non-reading and miss appreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisoinal jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law.
11. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restore that of the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. There will be no order as to costs.