IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.- Shortly put the facts, necessary for the disposal of instant civil revision are, that suit-land measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Maths. Located in Khasra No.2993, in the area of Mauza Jalbai, Tehsil Lahore District Swabi, was purchased by Muntazir defendant No.1, on the basis of unregistered sale-deed No.849, dated 10-7-1999, for a ostensible sale price of Rs.17,500.
2. Qatar Khan, plaintiff, instituted suit to enforce his right of pre-emption in respect of suit-lend. He claimed to have obtained knowledge of the suit transaction on 1-8-1999 at "Shagai Chowk", Swabi through his co-villager Saifullah in the presence of Faqir Warts and instantly expressed his intention to purchase suit property and made Talb-i-Muwathibat followed by notice of Talb-i-ishhad.
3. The suit was resisted on all grounds, legal as well as factual. Relevant issues were framed and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce, learned Civil Judge, Lahor, seized of the matter, by his judgment and decree dated 12-9-2003, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove 'Talbs' in accordance with law. An appeal was preferred there against, which was accepted, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit was decreed on payment of Rs.72,000 as sale consideration, by learned Additional District Judge, Lahor, District Swabi, by judgment, dated 22-1-2004.
4. Mumazir petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has filed instant civil revision under section 115, C.P.C.
Assailing the judgment and decree, dated 224-2004 of the appellate Court.
5. I have heard in detail Mr. Mahmood Alain Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Arbab Muhammad Asif, Advocate for the respondent. I have also gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to issue No.4, relating to the requirements of 'Talbs' and attempted to argue that suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court for valid reasons and the learned appellate Court had no justifiable reason to take contrary view and decree the suit. According to the learned counsel, finding on issue No.4 has been recorded by the appellate Court in a mechanical manner without application of mind and in total disregard to the material on file which has resulted in complete failure of justice. To augment the submissions, reliance was placed on Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Muhammad Hassan and another v, Liaqat Ali Khan 2001 CLC 1743 (Lahore).
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and decree whole-heartedly and reiterated that the civil revision petition is bereft of substance and merits outright dismissal. To augment the contention, he placed reliance on Allah Bakhsh and another v. Falak Sher 2004 SCMR 1580; Abdul Qayum through Legal Heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another 2001 SCMR 798; Haji Din Muhammad through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Hajra Bihi and others PLD 2002 Pesh. 21; Muhammad Younas v. Mst. Mohr Afzoon PLD 2002 Pesh. 109 and Yar Muhammad Khan v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 2003 Pcsh. 179.
8. In order to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I consider it appropriate to reproduce below section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 which reads:-- "13. Demand of pre-emption.--- (I) The right of pre-emption 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'."
9. The three demands asserting the right of pre-emption have their own respective connotations.
10. The first demand, i.e. 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' or, what is literally meant, the jumping is defined in the first explanation to subsection (1) of section 13 which envisage firstly, the act of prospective pre- emptor coming to know of the factum of a sale, secondly, such knowledge/information emanating from a sitting or meeting i.e. Majlis and thirdly, and rather foremostly declaration of his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption immediately on gaining the knowledge of the sale.
11. A person who intends to pre-empt a sale transaction by enforcing his right of pre-emption shall make an immediate demand in the sitting or meeting in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption technically called "Talb-e-Muwathibat".
He shall be thereafter required to make the demand of Talb-e-Ishhad by establishing evidence as soon as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of notice under section 32 of the Act or knowledge whichever may be earlier, by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses to the vendee under a registered postal cover with acknowledgment due confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption, then comes the demand for Talb-e-Khusumat by filing a suit in a competent Court for enforcing his right of pre-emption.
12. This is settled proposition of law in pre-emption cases that pre-emption right cannot be exercised unless and until the pre-emptor has performed the ceremony of Talb-e-Muwathibat immediately after hearing the sale. The delay in performing the ceremony is fatal to that right.
When Talb-e-Muwathibat is not made instantly on coming to know of the sale, the right of pre- emption is lost. A short delay would not be excused.
13. It may not be out of place to mention here that the pre-emption right, being-n feeble right pre- emptor seeking to exercise such right is required to perform and fulfil its requirements meticulously and any failure in that behalf would deprive him of success in getting a pre-emption decree as held in Wahid Bakhsh and others v. Abdul Qayum and others 1997 MLD 2945 (Peshawar).
14. Having considered the matter from all angles, in the light of the evidence on the file, I find that contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the statements of witnesses are inconsequential in nature and do not damage the respondent's case, who admittedly possesses superior right of pre-emption qua the petitioner, who is devoid of this qualification. The variations in the statements of witnesses qua date of issuance of notice are of no consequence and appear to be a slip of tongue. The Postmaster concerned was produced, who has fully testified the date of issuance of the notice in question. A perusal of the record would unmistakably indicate that on corning to know of the suit transaction, respondent immediately expressed his intention to pre-empt the suit property in presence of the witnesses and fulfilled the requirement of section 13 of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987.
15. Pursuant to above discussion, I find that judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is well-reasoned and suffers from no legal or factual infirmity calling for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The revision petition having been found devoid of force is dismissed with no order as to costs.