SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J. --- A suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by the respondent for the land fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The petitioner/vendee filed written statement taking various objections. Issues were framed. Evidence was recovered. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit returning its findings on Issue No, 2 vide its judgment and decree, dated 18.12.1999. An appeal was preferred by the respondent which was allowed by the learned Appellate Court granting decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the respondent pre-emptor by its judgment and decree, dated 2.5.2000. The vendee has come up in this Court in revision assailing the judgment of the learned Appellate Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent-pre-emptor has failed to prove performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat as ordained in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. He elaborating his point of view submits that no time, date and place has been mentioned in evidence by the respondent-pre-emptor and his witnesses.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-pre-emptor submits that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is well-reasoned and the pre-emptor had proved performance of Talibs in accordance with law.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The sale took place on 31.10.1996. The respondent-pre-emptor claims knowledge of sale on 27.12.1996 as mentioned in the plaint and notice of Talb-i-Ishhad Exh. P.3. Notice was issued on 6.1.1997. The respondent-pre-emptor appeared as P.W.1. He did not mention the date of knowledge in his statement. He stated that the declared his intention to file suit for possession through pre- emption after 6/7 days when he acquired the knowledge of transaction of sale. He further sated that after making declaration to file a suit for possession through pre-emption he went to "Katchary" and consulted Mr. Fazal Mehdi Kahloon, Advocate. He again stated that after sale transaction he declared his intention to file suit for pre-emption. His statement contradicts his own version in the plaint and notice Exh. P.3. He had not filed a suit for possession through pre-emption after 6/7 days of the sale. He had also not issued notice after 5/7 days of the knowledge of sale. As discussed above the sale took place on 31.10.1996. Knowledge is claimed on 27.12.1996 and notice was issued on 6.1.1997. His witnesses of Talb-i-- Muwathibat are PW.2 and P.W.3. Ghulam Rasool stated that one month after sale he got the knowledge of sale and informed the pre-emptor. This means that P.W.2 acquired the knowledge somewhere around 30.11.1996. P.W.3 has stated that Ghulam Rasool, P.W.2 had informed him of the transaction of sale. In cross-examination he stated that pre-emptor had told him of knowledge of sale one day before their meeting. He also stated that on 22.12.1996, after acquisition of knowledge. they went to the Legal Counsel at Phalia. P.W.2 and P.W.3 had made contradictory statements. The plaintiff states that Hameed and Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 and P.W.3 had informed him of the sale. This stance of the pre-emptor is belied by his witnesses of Talb-iMuwathibat i,e, P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 stated to have acquired knowledge one month after the sale and in that way the information posted to the pre-emptor should be around , 30.11.1995. Talb-i-Muwathibat is jumping demand. Laxity in performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat is seen with rigour. The respondent-pre-emptor had failed to prove performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat. The findings of the learned Appellate Court of this issue is reversed.
6. In view of the above discussion, while allowing this civil revision the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside and that of learned Trial Court is restored.