' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.--- This petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code seeks to challenge an order of the Additional Judge, Sialkot dated 22-11-1997 whereby he maintained the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption earlier made by Civil Judge, Sialkot on 25-11-1993.
2. The petitioner on 10-11-1992 approached the Civil. Court at Sialkot by way of a suit for possession through preemption in respect of a piece of land described on the face of the plaint. The respondent contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties as many as 11 issues were framed. Issues Nos. 1 and 6 pertained respectively to notice to the defendant under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and the fulfilment of requisite Talbs in accordance with law. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties learned trial Court concluded that issue No.6 could not be established by the plaintiff that notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was not sent in accordance with and within the period prescribed by the Act. The making of Talbs by the plaintiff/present petitioner, in view of the trial Court was not proved. Likewise, on issue No.1 the trial Court in the light of its findings on issue No.6 held that a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad under subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act was not sent in accordance with law.
3. Learned first Appellate Court/ Additional District Judge, Sialkot by way of impugned order maintained these findings in para.8 of the judgment which reads as under:--- "The appellant placed on record a copy (Exh.D.1) of the notice, which he had allegedly issued to the respondent. This document did not even contain the names of the witnesses, although it required the attestation by two truthful witnesses. It was alleged that the information of sale was given to the appellant by one Habib. He was also not produced, to support the appellant's case. Thus it is clear collusively that the appellant failed to fulfil the prerequisite Talbs, for the purposes of pre- emption. In these circumstances, even if, he had a superior right of preemption, this stood extinguished under section 13, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. There is thus nothing wrong with the findings of lower Court on -Issues Nos.1 and 6. These have been decided, correctly."
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I will agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below find support from the ratio settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in re. Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh, PLD 2003 SC 315. The Honourable Court concluded that performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat was a pure question of fact and that if the concurrent findings of fact given by the two Courts were not based upon conjectural presumptions, erroneous assumptions, wrong proposition of law, insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-reading of material evidence, erroneous A assumption of facts, patent errors of law, arbitrary exercise of power and unreasonable view of evidence, the High Court should not have interfered with simply to substitute its own finding. The Honourable Court further held that the date and time were required to be mentioned in the pleadings because therefrom the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad had to be computed so as to be within 15 days. Also that cases of pre-emption could not be exception to the general rule in civil cases that time qua the accrual of knowledge needed to be mentioned in specific so that nothing was invented during evidence as an afterthought. Further that it had never been made permissible in the realm of civil law that a plaintiff who did not disclose the point of time of his knowledge about accrual of cause of action to be accommodated subsequently in the evidence to specify the same. Therefore, in the view of the apex Court, it was important to tell the date and time of the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the same meeting and before the dispersal thereof.
5. Since, as observed earlier, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any of the B infirmities pointed out by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out.
6. Dismissed.