' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide C.R. No.1668 of 1999 to C.R. No.1672 of 1999 as common questions are involved.
2. All these civil revisions arise out of pre-emption suits filed by the respondents against the petitioners which were decreed on 25-1-1994 and the first appeals were dismissed on 25-5-1999 by a learned A.D.J., Sargodha. In all these cases, the petitioners acquired the suit-lands by means of exchange mutations. It will be important to note the dates of the said mutations:--
(i) C.R.No.1668 of 1999.
Mutation No. 578 attested on 25-4-1990.
(ii) C.R.No.1669 of 1999.
(iii) Mutation No. 576 attested 29-3-1990.
C.R.No.1670 of 1999.
(iv) Mutation No. 580 attested 8-5-1990. C.R.No.1671 of 1999.
Mutation No.575 attested on 29-3-1990. C.R.No.1672 of 1999. Mutation No. 577 attested 25-4-1990.
' In the suits filed by the respondents, the performance of Talb-iMuwathibat as well as Talb-i- Ishhad was pleaded. It was further stated that all these mutations were, in fact, sales and the disguise resorted to, to non-suit the respondents. The suits were contested. Issues including the issue pertaining to performance of Talb were C.R. No.1668 of 1999 framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed all the five suits vide judgments and decrees dated 25-1-1994 while a learned ADJ, Sargodha, dismissed the five first appeals on 25-5-1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have grossly misread the evidence on record and have misconstrued the law on the subject while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. No one has turned up for the respondents who are represented by a learned counsel whose name has been duly published in the cause list for today but no one turned up despite repeated calls. They are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have gone through the copies of on the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel. In the matter of C.R. No.1668 of 1999 and C.R. No.1671 of 1999, Umar Draz P.W.4 appeared as On the attorney of the plaintiffs. He is also sons of Salehoon plaintiff. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the plaintiff came to know about the sale on 16-6-1990 and made a Talb. In his cross- examination in both these cases, he first stated that he does not remember but thinks that it was Mirza who informed about the sale. He had, on however, not informed about the mode of transfer.
He was further cross-examined and he proceeded to state as follows in both the cases:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It will thus be seen that this witness had lied from his teeth because in his examination-in-chief he says that the information was received on 16-6-1990 whereas later he states that he was present at the time of the sale in the two cases which took place on 25-4-1990 and 29-3-1990 respectively.
5. Now so far as C.R. No.1669 of 1999 is concerned, Muhammad plaintiff appeared as P.W.4 and proceeded to state that he came to know about the sale two months after the fact and went to Mumtaz (petitioner) and told him that he has a right of pre-emption. In his cross-examination, he stated that Umar Draz and Salehoon had told him about the sale. He further confirmed that Umar Draz is the same person who had appeared as a witness in the other cases.
6. In C.R. No.1670 of 1999 Raja plaintiff made a similar statement. In C.R. No.1672 of 1999 Muhammad plaintiff made a similar statement.
7. Now in the said state of evidence on record, the learned trial Court has proceeded to hold that valid Talb-iMuwathibat has been made. The learned ADJ, however, found it difficult to affirm the said finding of the learned trial Court but proceeded to hold that since the suits were filed during the interregnum, it was not at all necessary to make and prove Talb-i-Muwatibat. Now this interregnum commenced on 1-8-1986 and ended on 28-3-1990. I have already reproduced above, dates of attestation of the mutations and all the mutations were attested after 28-3-1990. The learned ADJ has, therefore, deliberately given a wrong finding.
8. All these cases squarely attract mischief of section 115, C.P.C. Learned Courts below have deliberately misread the evidence on record and further the learned ADJ has proceeded to hold that the suits were filed during the interregnum whereas even the mutations subject-matter of the suits were attested after the expiry of the said interregnum. All these civil revisions are allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. Since the respondents have not opted to put in appearance, no orders as to costs in all these cases.