' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the impugned judgment 19th November, 1999 passed by the then Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Civil Revision No,630 of 1997.
2. The appellant instituted a suit for possession through preemption of the suit-land measuring 2 Kanals, 11 Marlas, 3 Sarsais, inter alia, on the grounds of contiguity and being co-sharer in the suit property. The suit of the appellant was dismissed by Civil Judge, Swabi, by judgment and decree dated 4th June, 1996. The appeal of the respondents there against was accepted by Additional District Judge, Swabi on 12th November, 1997. The appellant filed Civil Revision No,630 of 1997, which was accepted by the High Court by the impugned judgment, dated 19th November, 1999. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the appellants had successfully proved by producing sufficient evidence that Talb-iMuwathibat as well as Talb-i-Ishhad were proved in accordance with law and Injunctions of Islam. It was further submitted that the High Court as well as the trial Court misread the evidence on record in material respects. The learned counsel drew our attention to a notice stated to have been dispatched to the respondents on 29th August, 1993 whereby Talb-i-Ishhad was made for pre-empting the suit property.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant was admittedly present at the time of the sanctioning of the mutation in regard to the suit-land and his presence was further established by the fact that he had appeared before the Assistant Collector in connection with another mutation on the same day. It was further argued that the appellant was required to make Talb-iMuwathibat at the time of sanctioning of mutation of the said property in the same assembly.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length and have also perused the relevant record. The trial Court as well as the High Court have concurrently held that the appellant was present before the Revenue Officer at the time of sanctioning of mutation of this property as also in connection with another property purchased by him but he failed to make Talb-i-Muwathibat then and there in respect of the suit property. Even making of Talb-i-Ishhad was not proved in accordance with law. No misreading or non-reading of material evidence on record could be pointed 'out by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
6. For the above reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs.