' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---The facts leading to this civil revision are that the petitioner Muhammad Ramzan purchased a piece of land measuring 101 Kanals and 6 Marlas in village Herdothahin, Tehsil Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran in the ostensible sale price of Rs.9,00,000 from Gohar Sultana etc. Though he actually paid Rs.8,23,000 which was equal to the market price of the suit-land. As the sale came into the knowledge of the respondents, Rana Liaqat Ali and Rana Baqir Ali, they made Talb-iMuwathibat to get the land in pre-emption as being Shafi-i-Sharik, Shafi-i- Khalit and Shafi-i-Jar qua the suit-land. They pleaded "Zarar and Zarorat" in support of the exercise of their right of pre-emption. In the wake of Talb-i-Muwathibat a written notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was dispatched to the vendee through registered post as required under section 13(3) of the Preemption Act, 1991. As the two Talbs were not accepted by the vendee therefore, Talbi-Khasumat was made by filing a preemption suit on 23-9-1993. Vide judgment dated 9-4-1997, the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Kehror Pacca, decreed the suit of the respondents to the extent of the land measuring 50 Kanals and 13 Marlas. They were directed to deposit Rs.4,50,000 plus Rs.34,198.50, Rs.4,84,198.50 in toto after deducting the Zare-e-Soim if any, deposited by them till 9-5-1997 failing which their suit was rendered to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 9-4- 1997, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran, vide his judgment dated 18-7-1998. Against the said judgment, the petitioner has filed this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence; that the respondents failed to prove the making of Talb-e-Muwathibat as the sale took place on 23-5-1993 and Talb-i-Muwathibat was made on 14-9-1993 and the notice of Talbi-Ishhad (Exh.P.1) was sent to the petitioner on 21-9-1993 and in this way there is a delay of four months in making Talb-i-Muwathibat and both the Courts below ignored this aspect and as such both the judgments and decrees are totally against law and facts of the case and that the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondents to the extent of one half although they have not exercised the right of Talbaat Sharia according to the Punjab Pre-emption Act but the learned Courts below have totally disregarded this legal aspect and on this score too the judgments and decrees under revision are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan 1995 SCMR 1510; Haji Syed Abdul Haleem Shah v. Wali Dad and 6 others PLD 1993 SC 391; Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another 1992 SCMR 1886; Gul Husain Shah v. Mulazim Hussain Shah 1996 SCMR 294 and Ghulam Jilani and 3 others v. Ghulam Muhammad and 7 others 1991 SCMR 2001.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgments and submitted that the respondents were co-sharers of the disputed property, therefore, they filed a suit for pre-emption on the pleas of Shafi-i-Sharik, Shafi-i-Khalit and Shafi-i-Jar; that a sale price of Rs.9,00,000 was fictitiously shown with ulterior object to deter the respondents from exercising their right of pre-emption and in fact the bargain was settled at Rs.8,23,000; that they made demands as required by law on attaining the knowledge of impugned sale; that a registered notice containing the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad was addressed to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same; that the scope of section 115, C.P.C. Is limited and as such this Court cannot interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent finding on a question of fact rendered by the two Courts below unless it finds misreading and non-reading of evidence therein. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Mst. Husna Bano v. Faiz Muhammad Magsi and another 2000 CLC 709; Riaz v. Muhammad Salim and 4 others 1989 SCMR 1491; Imam Din v. Mst. Aisha alias Asia 1989 SCMR 457; Mst. Taj Bibi and another v. Muhammad Akbar and 6 others 1987 SCMR 1851 and Zafar ul Haq v.
Waris Iqbal and another PLD 1979 Lahore 793 and that there is no misreading and non-reading of the evidence in the impugned judgments.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the record.
5. For the disposal of this revision petition, it is most necessary to reproduce sections 6 and 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which are as under:-- ' Section 6 ' Persons in whom the right of preemption vests:---
(1) The right of pre-emption shall vest:--
(a) firstly, in "Shafi Sharik";
(b) secondly, in "Shafi Khalit"; and
(c) thirdly, in "Shafi Jar". Explanation
(I) `Shafi Sharik' means a person who is co-owner of the undivided immovable property sold.
(II) `Shafi Kahlit' means a participator in the special rights attached to the immovable property sold, such as right of passage, right of passage of water or right of irrigation.
(III) `Shafi Jar' means a person who has a right of pre-emption because of owning an immovable property adjacent to the immovable property sold.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the right of preemption shall be exercisable only in case of `Zaroorar or to avoid `Zarar'.
' Section 13 ' Demand of pre-emption:---
(1) The right of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands of pre-emption in the following order, namely:--
(a) 'Talb-i-Muwathibat';
(b) 'Talb-i-Ishhad' and
(c) 'Talb-i-Khusumat'. Explanation
(I) 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' means immediate demand by a preemptor, in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
' Note:-- Any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption are sufficient.
(II) 'Talb-i-Ishhad' means demand by establishing evidence.
(III) 'Talb-i-Khusumat' means demand by filing a suit.
(2) When the fact of sale comes within the knowledge of a pre-emptor through any source, he shall make 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' .
(3) Where a pre-emptor has made 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'; under subsection (2), he shall as soon thereafter as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge make 'Talb-i- Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgement due, to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption: ' Provided that in areas where owing to lack of post office facilities it is not possible for the pre- emptor to give registered notice, he may make 'Talb-i-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses.
(4) Where a pre-emptor has satisfied the requirements of 'Talb-iMuwathibae under subsection (2)
And 'Talb-i-Ishhad' under subsection (3), he shall make 'Talb-i-Khusumat' in the Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his right of pre-emption."
' It appears from the perusal of the said sections that a person being a co owner, participator in the special rights attached to the immovable property sold and owner of an immovable property adjacent to the immovable property sold, can make 'Talb-i-Khusumat by filing a suit for pre- emption after fulfilling requirements of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and Talb-i-Ishhad.
6. Admittedly, the sale of the disputed property took place on 23-5-1993 when the petitioner purchased the said land. The respondents are co-sharers in the disputed property as is evident from Exh.P.2 copy of record of rights pertaining to the year 1991-1992. The petitioner while appearing as D.W.1 also admitted this fact. The respondents came to know of the said sale on 14-9-1993 through Allah Bachaya son of Jamal Khan and on the same day they declared their intention to exercise the right of pre-emption in presence of Liaqat Ali son of Ibrahim, Muhammad Akram son of Mahfooz Ali (P.W.2) and Ata Muhammad son of Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.3), as is evident from Exh.P.1. On 21-9-1993, they sent a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad (Exh.P.1) to the petitioner through acknowledgement due receipt Exh.P.4 and postal receipt for dispatching notice of Talb-i-Ishhad Exh.P.5. They had filed a suit for preemption on 22-9-1993. Rana Liaqat Ali respondent supported the pre-emptor's case as P.W.1. Muhammad Akram (P.W.2) and Ata Muhammad (P.W.3) corroborated him in this regard. The latter two are attesting witnesses of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad and its copy on the record is Exh.P.1. Abdul Sattar (P.W.4) is a clerk of Ch. Muhammad Ismail Meo, Advocate, a scribe of Exh.P.1 which was sent through post to the vendee/petitioner.
7. From the narration of the above facts, it is crystal clear that the respondents after coming to know of the said sale made Talb-i-Muwathibat on 14-9-1993 and on 21-9-1993 (within two weeks) they made Talb-i-Ishhad by sending a notice (Exh.P.1) to the petitioner through postal receipt Exh.P.5. The said notice was received by the petitioner as is evident from Exh.P.4. Under the law the notice (Exh.P.1) was required to be attested by two truthful witnesses. The same is attested by four witnesses but Muhammad Akram and Ata Muhammad were produced in evidence as P.W.2 and P.W.4 which was the actual requirement of the law. The petitioner while appearing as D.W.1 denied the receipt of notice Exh.P.1. The postal receipt Exh. P.4 and acknowledgement receipt Exh. P.5 nullify his contention.
8. Under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, it was imperative for the respondents to prove all the Talbs and in my opinion, they have proved all the Talbs, therefore, the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to this case.
9. It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless the two Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is perverse to the evidence on record. It is well-settled that it only lies on the ground of error of law or error in procedure which may have affected the decisions of the case upon merits. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Siddiq Hashim PLD 1992 SC 838 and Sughran Bibi v. Mst.Aziz Begum and 4 others 1996 SCMR 137. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is still narrower. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents i.e. 2000 CLC 709; 1989 SCMR 1491; 1989 SCMR 457; 1987 SCMR 1851 and PLD 1979 Lahore 793 are applicable to this case as learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments which can enable this Court to disturb the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in exercise of power contemplated by section 115, , C.P.C. It could also not be established that the Courts below have committed any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition having no merits is dismissed with no order as to the costs.