' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit to pre-empt a sale made in favour of the respondents/vendees. The suit was resisted on the ground that the appellant had failed to fulfil the requirement of Talbs.
2. Both Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to make Talb-i- Muwathibat. I have gone through the testimony of the appellant/plaintiff who appeared as P.W.1. He admitted that he was informed of the sale on 2-1-1994 but, according to his examination-in-chief, he did not make any pronouncement that he would pre-empt the sale. Instead he deposed that he gathered his witnesses and went to Mandi Bahauddin. In these circumstances, the learned Courts below were fully justified in holding that the requirements Of Talb-i-Muwathibat had not been fulfilled by the appellant/plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant by conduct can be deemed to have pronounced his right to pre-empt the sale. This cannot be accepted because the appellant had to make an overt expression immediately upon being informed of the sale. Furthermore, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant himself was a Patwari and was fully aware of the requirements of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. Both the Courts below thus have passed their judgments and decrees on the evidence on record including the testimony of the appellant-plaintiff as P.W.1. The impugned decrees are, therefore, unexceptionable. This appeal as a consequence is dismissed.