' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin dismissing petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahau Din, whereby pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 22-12-1993.
2. The facts in brief are that against the sale of land measuring 18-Kanal situated in Tehsil Phalia District Mandi Bahauddin for an ostensible price of Rs.1,50,000 in favour of respondents through Mutation No.975 dated 12-3-1991, petitioners claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of co- sharer, etc. Filed a suit for pre-emption on 13-4-1991. The said suit was contested by the respondents through written statement, wherein besides denying the alleged pre-emption right of the petitioners, they also claimed that petitioners did not fulfil the necessary requirements of requisite Talbs, hence the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties formulated the following issues:-- ' Issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have right of pre-emption, if so, its effect? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiffs had fulfilled the requirement of the Talbs before bringing this suit? OPP.
(3) Whether the ostensible price of Rs.1,50,000 was actually paid? OPD.
(4) If the above issue is not proved then what was the market value of the suit-land at the time of its sale? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD.
(7) Whether the defendants have incurred expenditure on mutation etc., if so, how much and to what effect? OPD.
(8) Relief.
' The petitioners in their evidence produced Ghulam Nabi one of the petitioners as P.W.1 and also got recorded the statements of Khizar Hayat P.W.2 and Bati P.W.3 and closed their evidence by producing documents Exhs.P.1 to P.4. In rebuttal, Khushi Muhammad one of the respondents appeared as D.W.2 and produced Manak D.W.2, Rehmat Khan D.W.3. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22-12-1993 besides holding that petitioners had a right of pre-emption qua sale in dispute and that the land in dispute was in fact sold for a sum of Rs.1,50,000 dismissed the suit on the basis of its findings on Issue No.2 regarding non- fulfilment of requisite Talbs. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 21-11-1996, hence this revision.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings of two Courts below suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. His contention is that the reasons given by the two Courts below while recording findings on Issue No.2 are no more sustainable in view of the latest pronouncement of the apex Court in the case "Azmatullah through L.Rs. v. Mst. Hameeda Bibi and others" 2005 SCM R 1201 and "Allah Bakhsh and another v. Falak Sher" 2004 SCM R 1580.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove the essentials of Talb-i-Muwathibat and unless the said Talb is specifically proved, the remaining two Talbs i.e. Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-i-Khushumat, even if proved, are of no help to the petitioners and to this effect, he has placed reliance on the case "Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Arif" 2003 CLC 706. He has further argued that the evidence produce by the petitioners on the performance of Talb-iMuwathibat is not only vague and ambiguous but is also not confidence inspiring.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. There is no cavil to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that after the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in 2000 SCM R 329, the pre-emptors are not required to pinpoint specific time and place about making of Talb-i-Muwathibat and other details, in the plaint, as earlier held by the apex Court, yet at the same time the fact whether the plaintiff in fact succeeded in proving the requisite Talbs can also not be lost sight by the Court while deciding issues of Talbs in the context of evidence led by the parties, otherwise, incorporation of requirement of performance of Talbs in Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 through section 13 would become redundant. On the point of Talbs the statement of Ghulam Nabi one of the petitioners is neither confidence-inspiring nor fulfills the legal requirement, even the same is silent as to when the petitioners got first information about the sale in question and when Talb-iMuwathibat was made. Again Ghulam Nabi P.W.1 has referred Khizar Hayat who informed him about the sale in question, whereas, Khizar Hayat while appearing as P.W.2 has referred the source of his information to be one Safi who has not been produced. Even the notice Exh.Pil allegedly sent by the petitioners to the respondents, does not sufficiently disclose the necessary particulars of Talb-iMuwathibat.
The learned two Courts below in their judgments although have laid stress for not disclosing minute particulars of making Talb-i-Muwathibat as was the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court at that time, yet the same cannot be thrown away merely on the ground of law declared by the apex Court referred to above, subsequent to the decisions of the two Courts below.
The law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cited authorities, also do not hold that requirements of Talbs must be held as fulfilled, even without any evidence. Since the question of fulfilment of requisite Talbs on the part of the petitioners, is a question of fact and same having been recorded by the two Courts below against the petitioners and in the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence having been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not persuaded to declare the same as without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents has therefore, rightly argued that unless Talb-iMuwathibat is established, second two Talbs i.e. Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-iKhushumat, even if proved would be of no help to the petitioners, as held by this Court in Fateh Muhammad's case 2000 CLC 409.
7. For what has been discussed above, ' I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.