' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 19-3-2007 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No,1389 of 2006 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant petition are that land measuring 4 kanals and 9 marlas situated in village Kalianwala District Hafizabad was purchased by petitioner from Shabir Hussain for a consideration of Rs,150,000 vide mutation No,1571 dated 29-1-2003. On 1-2- 2003 at Asar Waila respondent came to know about the sale through Asghar Ali P.W.6 and Nawab P.W.5 and, in their presence ,he announced his intention to purchase the suit land claiming his superior right of pre-emption. After performing Talb-i-Muwathibhat he along with P.Ws. 5 and 6 went to the house of petitioner and asked him to sell the land in his favour but he refused. On 6-2- 2003 respondent dispatched notice of Talb-i-Ishhad attested by P.Ws. 5 and 6 through registered post. The respondent then filed suit before learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Hafizabad claiming his superior right of pre-emption being owner in joint khata of suit land as well having land adjacent to the suit land including common source of irrigation and passage. It was alleged in suit that in order to ward off any intending pre-emptor sale price was inflated as Rs,150,000. The suit was contested by petitioner by filing written statement and raising preliminary objection that Talbs as required under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were not performed at all. However, the suit of respondent was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 3-3- 2006. Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad, which was allowed on 9-6-2006 and the suit of respondent was decreed whereby he was directed to deposit pre-emption money of Rs,150,000 less Zar-e-Soam till 8-7-2006, failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner challenged this judgment and decree before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore through Civil Revision No,1389 of 2006, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Farid Santora, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mian Ghulam Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent at length and gone through the record and proceedings in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that learned High Court did not appreciate the evidence brought on record in its true perspective which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him, neither Talb-i-Muwathibat nor Talb-i-Ishhad as prescribed by law were performed by respondent/plaintiff. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence adduced by P.Ws. As such the same is not worth credence. He vehemently contended that it is settled principle of law that requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat cannot be fulfilled unless the details, particulars, date, time and place are specifically indicated in the plaint and the names of the persons in whose presence such Talb was made. Learned counsel contended that the judgment of trial Court is well-reasoned and is based on proper appraisal of evidence and is in accordance with law, as such, the same may be maintained. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Haji Muhammad Saleern. v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 wherein, it was held that it is important for the plaintiff to disclose date and time of the performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat in the plaint so as to prove immediate exercise thereof and also as to whether he performed Talb-i-Muwathibat in the same meeting and before the dispersal thereof, which is a clear indication of compulsion on the prospective pre-emptor that he has to make Talb-i- Muwathibat in between the period of his having received the information in the Majlis and the dispersal of the Majlis, beyond such limitation, the Talb exercised would be invalid. Talb-i-Ishhad has to be complete Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others PLD 2005 SC 977;d within 15 days after the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. Pre-emptor can be non-suited for non- performance of Talbi-Ishhad as well as the performance of same has to be limited with performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat.
5. On the other land learned counsel for the respondent controverted the above contentions and contended that impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal flaw and P.Ws. Are unanimous about the date, time and place of gaining of knowledge by the respondent regarding sale and have deposed that respondent instantly expressed his intention of pre-empting the sale. He further contended that respondent has proved the Talb-i-Ishhad by producing its marginal witnesses, namely, P.W.5 Nawab and P.W.6 Asghar Ali who without any contradiction supported the case of respondent on making Talbs. He further contended that even service of notice on petitioners is established through the testimony of independent witness, Muhammad Yousaf, Postmaster (P.W.1) who produced the original receipts.
6. Admittedly, respondent has superior right of pre-emption being co-owner in the suit land.
Irrespective of above, respondent has adjacent land to the suit land including common passage and source of irrigation. The Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court on proper appraisal of evidence rightly concurred that respondent on coming to know of sale immediately made jumping demand by disclosing his superior right of pre-emption in the suit land in presence of P.Ws. 5 and
6. Similarly, the factum of sending notice of Talb-i-Ishhad attested by two truthful witnesses stood established on record. Thus there can be no exception to the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on both talbs which were made in accordance with law.
7. Since there were divergent views of the Benches of this Court in cases of pre-emption as to whether it was mandatory to disclose the particulars and details of date, time, and place of receiving information about sale and making Talib-i-Muwathibhat and also the date of issuance of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint, a larger bench was constituted, which resolved the controversy in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad v. Fariq Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302 which dissented with the view taken in the cases of Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329 and Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314 and approved the dictum laid down in the cases of Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bukhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others PLD 2005 SC 977. It was held that a plaint wherein date, place, and time of Talb- iMuwathibhat and date of issuance of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in terms of section 13 of the Act is not provided, it would be fatal for the preemptor. So far as minor discrepancies in the statements of P.Ws are concerned, this Court in the case of Allah Bakhsh v. Falak Sher 2004 SCM R 1580 held that minor discrepancies of time could not come in the way of pre-emptor. This Court also held in the case of Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Latif 1999 SCM R 717 that the service of registered notice by pre- emptor containing the names of two truthful witnesses before whom Talb-i-Ishhad was made amounted to substantial compliance of the provisions of law. Learned counsel for petitioners though argued at length yet could not refer to any illegality, misreading of non-appraisal of evidence.
8. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts below which are maintained. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.