SHAH JEHAN KHAN, J.---This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Charsadda in Civil Appeal No.84/13 of 2003 dated 5-10-2004 whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 19-6-2003.
2. The respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Tangi in exercise of his superior right of pre-emption in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos.1663/683 to 685 comprised in Khata No.33/75 measuring 19 Kanals, 12 Marlas in Mauza Kiramat Shah. The said land was mutated by way of sale in favour of defendant-petitioners through sale Mutation No.1599 attested on 14-7-1997. The plaintiff-respondent alleged to have got superior right of pre-emption and there was no notice served upon him regarding the sale transaction. On getting the information regarding the sale he made Talb-i-Muwathibat there and then which was followed by Talb-i-Ishhad and thereafter the suit was brought before the Court as Talb-i-Khusumat. The sale consideration appearing in the sale mutation as Rs.5,00,000 was also challenged with the contention that a sum of Rs.2,00,000 has been paid to the vendor and an exaggerated amount was fictitiously recorded in the sale mutation to deprive the plaintiff-respondent from exercising his vested right of pre-emption. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioners through written statement and the trial Court framed the following issues arising from the pleading of the parties:--
(1) Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have superior right of pre-emption?
(3) Whether the Talbs have validly been made?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue?
(5) Whether Rs.5,00,000 have bonafidely been paid along with District Council Fee etc. As consideration for the suit property?
(6) Market value?
(7) Relief.
3. Both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence as they wished to produce and after hearing the learned counsel for parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent based on his findings on Issue No.3. The defendant-petitioners were found to have superior right of pre- emption and the sale consideration was determined at Rs.5,00,000 actually paid to the vendor. The pre-emptor was having no cause of action for non-compliance of requisite Talbs.
4. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal to the Court of District Judge, which was accepted vide the impugned decree and judgment.
5. I heard Mr. Shahabuddin Burq, counsel for defendant-petitioners and Mr. Gul-e-Sadbar Khan counsel for plaintiff-respondent on pre-admission notice. Also perused the record.
6. The controversy between the parties is only regarding Talbs. It is alleged by the respondent-pre- emptor that on 2-11-1997 at 9-00 a.m. He was informed by Ghulam Muhammad in his Hujra and he made Talb---i-Muwathibat there and then in the presence of said informer. The same day he issued five notices at Talb-i-Ishhad duly signed by Ghulam Muhammad and Imdadullah as witnesses. On 3-11-1997 he has filed the suit as Talb-i-Khusumat. In their written statement, the petitioners-- vendees have raised preliminary objection including the objection on Talbs to the effect that requisite Talbs were not made in accordance with law. On factual side, he also denied the averments made in the plaint. No other issue was agitated before me except Issue No.3, which reads as follows::--- "Whether the Talbs have validly been made?"
7. The respondent/pre-emptor has produced Zahiruddin, Registration Clerk of the Post Office as P.W. He has admitted the Receipts bearing No.827 to 831 Exh.P.W.1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/5. He has also produced the original register, which pertains to Serial No.801 to 1000 for the period of 31-10-1997 to 24-11-1997. The receipts regarding notices Exh.P.W.1/8 to P.W.1/10 were produced before the Court.
Muhammad Asghar Postmaster Ziam Qala was examined as P.W.2. The crooks of his deposition is the same which was stated by P.W. He has deposed that some of the petitioners were served with a notice while some of them were reported un-served. However, the father of absentee vendor refused to receive the notice. He has produced copy of the abstract Register Exh.P.W.2/8 and Exh.P.W.2/9. He has also produced the un-served A.D. Cards Exh.P.W.2/10 to Exh.P.W.2/18 along with his report on it.
Qadir Khan Patwari P.W.3 has produced the Revenue Record regarding the suit-land which need not be discussed in detail as there is no controversy on it. The informer and witness of Talb-i- Ishhad was produced as P.W.4. He has stated that he informed the respondent/pre--emptor at 900 hours and he expressed his desire to exercise his right of pre-emption there and then. He directed his attorney namely Amin to contact the counsel for onward legal process. He along with Amin and Imdad Bacha visited the house of counsel and informed him about their visit. The said counsel provided five notices which were brought for obtaining signatures of the respondent/pre-emptor which were duly signed by him and they also signed the notices in presence of the counsel. Copies of those notices were produced as y.W.4/1 to P.W.4/5.
Imdad Ullah another witness of the notice Talb-i-Ishhad (P.W.5) has also admitted his signature on the notices Exh.P.W.4/1 to Exh.P.W.4/5 and has supported P.W.4 on all material aspects.
Aminullah appeared in his capacity as attorney for attorney for respondent/pre-emptor as P.W.6 and he has narrated the story put forward by P.W. 4 and the averments made in the plaint.
8. In rebuttal the petitioners have produced Madar Khan D.W.1 in whose presence the impugned sale Mutation No.1599 was attested on 14-7-1997 and in his presence Rs.5,00,000 as sale consideration was paid to Muhammad Nawaz Khan, the vendor, Abdul Hakim father of minor petitioners 4 and 5 as well as petitioners 1 to 3, his major sons the vendees. In nutshell, he has disclosed the process of attestation of sale mutation and prayed for dismissal of the suit. However, he has admitted that no public notice was issued before the transaction as required by law. No other evidence was produced in defence. However, Fida Muhammad was produced as A.D.W.1 through whom Khasra Girdawari for Kharif'1998 to Rabi 2000 Exh.A.D.W.1/1 was produced. The trial Court after referred to certain contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. Found the respondent/pre- emptor non-suited for the grant of decree as the 'factum of demands was not established satisfactorily. On appeal the appellate Court reversed the finding and granted the requisite decree to the respondent/pre-emptor.
9. The respondent/pre-emptor has produced sufficient evidence plaintiff's discharge his liability regarding requisite demands. The plaintiff's evidence is evident to show that all the Talbs were made but there were certain contradictions in the time and proceeding the notices. A question arises whether minor contradictions would deprive a party to the suit when otherwise he succeeded in establishing the basic requirements certain Talbs. In this respect counsel for respondent has produced reported judgments to substantiate his contention. The minor contradictions cannot become hurdle in the way of granting decree. In case of Abdul Qayum v.
Mushk-e-Alam 2001 SCM R 798 it was held as follows:-- "The witnesses were making statements after lapse of considerable period from the date of Talb-i- Muwathibat, therefore, they were not expected to remember each and every minor details as to time. These were natural variations, which a human being in the ordinary course of business would certainly make which do not in any way detract from the veracity of their evidence. It is also clear from the statements of these witnesses that notice in relation to Talb-i-Ishhad was given after five days of acquiring knowledge of sale by the plaintiff and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat. Copy of the notice is available on the record which was issued on 7-11-1997, therefore, the correctness of the statements was proved that the same was issued after five days of Talb-i-Muwathibat."
10. In Mst. Gohar Sultan v. Gul Waris Khan PLD 2003 Pesh. 189 it was observed that minor contradictions with regard to Talbs especially when statements of the witnesses were recorded after long time would be ignored. In Yar Muhammad Khan v. Bashir Ahmed PLD 2003 Pesh. 179 it was held that taking into consideration minor omissions and contradictions in the statements of witnesses of the pre-emptor has caused grave prejudice. The approach of the Civil Courts in giving effect to the minor omissions and contradictions run counter to sound judicial principle because the rules and standards for appraisal of evidence in civil cases were different from those employed in criminal cases as the law has laid down different stands of proof for different categories of cases. In criminal cases accused is always presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved beyond any shadow of doubt, but in civil cases the Court has to reach the crooks of the matter and minor contradictions or omissions having no substance are to be ignored.
11. At some stage of the arguments learned counsel for petitioners also agitated that the respondent/pre-emptor was himself not present during those days and he was wrongly represented by attorney in the trial Court. Neither the petitioners have raised this objection in written statement nor any issue was framed nor any evidence to that effect was adduced at the trial Court. On this score, the contention can be repelled. Even this phenomena was examined in Muhammad Younas v. Mst. Mehr Afzoon PLD 2002 Pesh. 109 and it was held that in a pre-emption suit non-appearance of the pre-emptor in the witness-box would not be fatal as the law permits a litigant to be represented through the appointed attorney and the statement of attorney recorded in the proceedings was held to have been rightly relied upon.
12. The learned counsel for petitioners has laid stress upon certain omissions and contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. But those c contradictions were scrutinized by the lower Appellate Court and also by this Court and found not so much material to repeal the contention regarding compliance of requisite Talbs. The learned counsel has failed to lay hands on any case-law wherein minor omissions and contradictions in the statements of witnesses supporting the performance of Talbs were held to be fatal for non-suiting the pre-emptor.
13. In the were of the aforesaid discussion I found this revision petition devoid of substance which is hereby dismissed in limine.