' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Transaction of sale dated 9-2-1994 completed through Mutation No.358 was made basis for the suit for pre-emption instituted by the respondent/plaintiff wherein he pleaded his superior right, being the co-sharer. The suit was contested by the vendee/defendant pleading inter alia nonperformance of Talbs in accordance with law. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the several, issues which were framed by the trial Court. On appreciation of the evidence that was led by the parties in support of their pleas, it was found by the trial Court that the respondent/plaintiff had superior right, however, it was observed that he had failed to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law and thus his right stood extinguished.
The suit was eventually dismissed on 28-10-1997. Appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin on 2-5-2000 reversing the findings of the trial Court. This is revision petition by the vendee/defendant against the judgment of the first appellate Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that findings on essential issue as to performance of Talb i.e. Issue No.1 are not fully borne out from the evidence on the record inasmuch as that the place of knowledge as to sale was not at all disclosed in the notice of Talb-e- Ishhad and plaint; and that the depositions of the witnesses as to timing was also not consistent with each other. According to him, such inconsistent and contradictory statements could not be made basis for findings in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff by the first appellate Court.
' The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the view taken by the first appellate Court and contends that the findings so recorded are based on appreciation and evaluation of the evidence by the first appellate Court which cannot be interfered by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. It is further contended that substantial compliance of provisions of section 13 having been made by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No. 1 .
3. In view of the variant approach of the two Courts below qua the same set of evidence, the pleadings and the evidence on the record have been perused and considered with the assistance of the Darned counsel for the parties. The case of the respondent/pre-emptor as set up in the plaint (in particular paragraphs Nos.3 and 4 thereof) was that he acquired knowledge of the transaction of sale from his father on 9-2-1994 at "Maghrab" time when he immediately declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption. It was pleaded that after "Maghrab" prayer he along with Shahsawar son of Phallay Shah and Rafaqat Ali son of Nazar Hussain went to the house of the petitioner/vendee and informed him about his right of pre-emption to which he did not pay any heed thereafter notice of Talb-e-Ishhad dated 15-2-1994 mias issued to him. Such an assertion was contested and denied by the petitioner/ vendee through his written statement. In the *text of the present controversy Issue No.1 only assumes relevance which was "Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with the requirement of law, if so to what legal effect? OPP" The respondent/plaintiff appeared himself as P.W.1 whereas he produced Rafaqat Ali P.W.2, Shahsawar P.W.3, Lal Shah (his father) P.W.4 and Muhammad Masood, Advocate P.W.5, the scribe of the notice. Some inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses were noted by the learned trial Court as to the timing and place of making of Talb-eMuwathibat which persuaded him to decide Issue No.1 against the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge, however, on reappraisal of the evidence by taking into consideration the preponderant effect of the totality of the evidence, has reversed findings of the trial Court and Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The inconsistencies that were made basis by the trial Court and have been stressed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to show that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, were of trivial nature and inconsequential in effect. There was no material inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as to the timing and date of knowledge of the transaction and visitation by them of the house of the petitioner/ vendee about pronouncement of his intention. On acquiring knowledge, the declaration was made by the respondent immediately there and then at the same place. As to whether it was courtyard of the house or "pasar", it remains the same house and the place. It had no material effect. Such inconsistency as is being highlighted by the learned counsel has not impressed me inasmuch as the over all effect of the evidence produced by the respondent was in consonance with the material aspects of the matter i.e. The timing and date of acquisition of knowledge about the transaction of sale, the declaration of his intention and going to the house of the petitioner/vendee along with Shahsawar and Rafaqat Ali both of whom had witnessed of issuance of notice of Talb- e-Ishhad (Exh.P.1). They also appeared before the Court as well. Even the father of the respondent/plaintiff namely Lal Shah who gave him the information about the sale, appeared as P.W.4. The cumulative effect of the whole evidence fully supports the view formed by the learned first appellate Court. Such exercise of appreciation of evidence undertaken by the first appellate Court does not call for interference by this Court. It may be observed that even the possibility of forming some different view of the matter, could not justify exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
' As a result, the revision petition lacks merit which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.