' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- Ghulam Haider deceased (predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.1 to 9) filed a suit seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption. The suit was resisted by the petitioners-vendees. It was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 11-7-2005 on the ground that the respondent had failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhad. While coming to this conclusion the learned trial Court noted that the date appearing on the notices of Talb-eIshhad is 7-3-1996 while the receipt, issued by the post office, was issued on 20-3-1996. Acknowledgement due receipts were not produced by the respondent which could have clarified any discrepancy in this matter.
2. An appeal filed by the respondent has however, been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 28-3-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out, firstly, that the learned Appellate Court has not even discussed the aspects of Talb-e-Ishhad which had prevailed with the learned trial Court. Secondly, it is contended that in view of the discrepant dates on the notices of Talb-e-Ishhad and the postal receipts and also on account of failure of the respondents to bring on record the acknowledgement receipts, the finding of the learned trial Court was proper.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-pre-emptors has not been able to convert the above submissions. There are two receipts (Exhs.P.13 and 14) brought on the record by the respondents. Both receipts are addressed to Muhammad Nazir (petitioner No.8). In all, 8 postal receipts have been exhibited on record. Considering that two of these receipts show Muhammad Nazir as the addressee, it becomes evident that notices were not sent to all eight vendees. This fact alone is sufficient to non-suit the respondents-pre-emptors. Additionally, it does appear' from the two receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) that the same were issued on 20-7-1996.
4. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) were issued much later than the other receipts. The printed serial numbers appearing on the other receipts are 553 in respect of Exh.P.15 and 554 in respect of Exh.P.16. These receipts bear the postmark dated 7-3-19,96. The receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14), however, appear at Serial Nos.1355 and 1356 respectively. This circumstance would also show that notices of Talb-e-Ishhad sent under receipts (Exh.P.13 and Exh.P.14) were of a date subsequent to 7-3-1996.
5. In view of the above discussion, find that the learned Appellate Court has misread the evidence while holding that the respondents had successfully proved the performance of Talbs. In this view of the matter, the impugned appellate decree is not legally sustainable. The same is set aside and, as a consequence, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 11-7-2005 stands restored.