1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant/pre-emptor has lost his cause on the issue of Talbs at both the forums below. He avers in the plaint to have learnt about the sale in question on 19-7-1992 through Muhammad Mumtaz and made Talb-e-Muwathibat, followed by thenotice of Talb-e- Ishhad, dated 26-7-1992. This has been controverter by the respondent/defendants, thus the controversy culminated into issue No,2. The appellant himself appeared as P.W.1, and examined Muhammad Feroz as P.W.2 and Nasar Hayat as P.W.3. In his examination-in-chief, the appellant has not given the exact date of the learning of the sale or making the Talb-e-Muwathibat, but vaguely stated it to be about nine months ago; his statement was recorded on 7-4-1993 and if nine months period is calculated, it comes to 7-7-1992; therefore, the factum of the exact date given in the plaint, has not been established/proved either by the appellant or by his witnesses, who also have not given the exact date and stated it to be 8/9 months ago. There is another vital contradiction in the matter that in the plaint, the appellant clearly stated that he learnt about the sale through Muhammad Mumtaz; Mumtaz has not been examined, and in the evidence, the position has been set out that it was Nasar Hayat, who had apprised the appellant about the sale, this contradiction is a departure from the pleadings and it is settled law that such evidence cannot sustain. Therefore,' the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below against the appellant, when not shown to be the result of any misreading and non-reading of the evidence, cannot be interfered in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.