MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- Both the petitions (Civil Revision No.411 of 1999 and Civil Revision No.412 of 1999), involve the common questions of law and facts, thus, are being decided together.
2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in a pre-emption cause in both the cases, has been non-suited by the learned trial Court on the issue of Talbs, which according to the Court, he has failed to prove.
This remains to be the decision of the learned Court of appeal, when challenged by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings of the Courts below are based upon misreading and non-reading of the evidence; the learned Court of appeal has discarded the case of the petitioner on the ground that he himself has not appeared as a witness, rather has examined his attorney; but according to the learned counsel, in view of the law laid on in Haji Qadar Gul v.
Moembar Khan and another 1999 SCM R 2102 and Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Latif 1999 SCM R 717, these reasons cannot go against the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may, I have myself perused the record and find, that the suit for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner on 4-5-1992; no date, on which the petitioner had learnt about the sale, has been specifically mentioned therein. It is vaguely stated that it was about two weeks before the institution of the suit. When the petitioners' witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 appeared, they even have not stated this to be two weeks before the institution of the suit, but have stated that it is in the month of "Besaakh". Obviously, on account of such vague evidence, it cannot 'be held that the petitioner had made a valid Talb, as no particulars have either been given in the plaint nor proved through the evidence. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly rejected the petitioner's claim, as the first Talb has not been proved.
5. As regards the findings of the two Courts below on the second Talb are concerned, suffice it to say that both have come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was residing abroad and no notice had been sent to him at his address there; no misreading and non-reading in this behalf has been shown, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in such findings as well. Even otherwise, if the second Talb is held to be proved, it shall have no reflection upon the final conclusion of the two Courts below, as Talb-e-Muwathibat has not been proved.