' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- This civil appeal has been directed against the order, dated 18-1-2000 passed by the learned single Bench in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Revision No,290-D of 1999, whereby civil revision filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Chakwal dated 16-6-1999 preferred against judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge, Chakwal, dated 3-11-1998 dismissing the suit of the appellant, was dismissed.
2. The precise relevant facts of the case are that the appellant filed suit for possession through the pre-emption against the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Chakwal in respect of the suit-land measuring 3 Kanals and 4 Marlas on the ground of superior right of pre-emption being the co-sharer in the Khata challenging the sale made in favor of the respondents' predecessor-ininterest on 28-12-1995. It was alleged by the appellant in his suit that he came to know about the sale transaction on 23-2-1996 whereupon; he made the Talb-e- Muwathibat, whereas; Talb-e-Ishhad was made as required by law on 26-2-1996 under registered cover (A.D.) in presence of the witnesses.
' The suit was resisted by the said respondent by means of his written statement, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned therein qua the performance of necessary Talbs was also disputed. Out of pleadings of the parties 7 issues were framed besides the Issue No,8 relating to relief, reproduced hereinbelow:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled all the Talbs?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption?
(3) Whether the suit-land was sold out in sum of Rs,3,20,000 the actually and bonafidely paid?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by law?
(5) Whether the proper court-fee has not been affixed?
(6) Whether the property was purchased by the defendant in sum of Rs,3,84,000?
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to the incidental charges, if so, to what extent?
(8) Relief."
3. The appellant in support of his claim produced two witnesses namely Tajammal Hayat and Mushtaq Ahmed as P.Ws.2 and 3 in whose presence according to the appellant necessary Talbs were made by him. The appellant appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1. Copy of notice of Talb-i- Ishhad was produced as Exh.P.l, copy of record of rights for the year 1990-1991 as Exh.P.2, copy of postal, receipt as Exh.P.3 and A.D. Card P.4.
' In rebuttal, 3 witnesses were produced namely, Fayyaz Hussain (D.W.2), Haji Lai Khan (D.W.3), and Zamir Hussain (D.W.4), whereas Muhammad Nawaz appeared as attorney for the defendant as (D .W. 1).
4. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties vide judgment dated 3-11-1998 dismissed the suit of the appellant by deciding, inter alia, crucial issue No,1 against appellant/plaintiff. The appellant assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Appeal No,107 of 1996 before the learned District, Judge, Chakwal, which too was dismissed on 16-6-1999. Both these decrees and judgments were assailed in civil revision before the learned Single Judge of the High Court which met the same fate, hence; he approached to this Court by filing Civil Petition No,580 of 2000 for leave to appeal, which was allowed and leave was granted vide order, dated 16-2-2001 to consider the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the learned Courts A including the High Court have not derived correct inference from the proved facts and; the conclusions so arrived had suffered from gross illegality.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, as well as; Mr. Gul Zarin Kiyani, the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard in the light of evidence available on record, gone through carefully with their able assistance including pleadings of the patties and the documents available on record. Sh. Zamir Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was proved through the testimony of P.Ws. Tajammul Hussain and Mushtaq Ahmed and the appellant that he won 23-2-199.6 came to know about the sale transaction of the land in question, whereupon immediately Talb-e-Muwathibat was made and thereafter on 26-2-1996 as required by law, notice with regard to the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad was sent to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely, Shahbaz Gul. The appellant also appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1 and fully supported to his claim of pre-emption but his testimony and that of the other P.Ws. Could not be impeached or rebutted through evidence at trial but the learned Courts including Honourable Single Judge in the High , Court for unsustainable reasons concluded otherwise by misconstruing the evidence.
6. Controverting the above noted contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the evidence available on record on Issue No,1 was appraised in its true perspective by the Courts below and the learned Judge in the High Court to which no exception could be taken. No material part of the evidence on the point was misread or misconstrued nor any untenable conclusion, found favor with the learned Courts was drawn so as to call for any interference by this Court.
7. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length and the contentions put forth have been considered in the light of the evidence available on record. It is always obligatory for a pre-emptor on coming to know about the sale of property to make Talb-e-Muwathibat without any further loss of time. In the present case, the appellant did not state that he immediately made the above said demand on acquiring knowledge of the said sale. He deposed that in the evening on 23-2-1996, he was informed about the sale of land in question by Tajammal Hayat P.W.2 in his own house and on the same day he made Talb-eMuwathibat for enforcing his claimed right of pre-emption. He even did not state that he made the said demand in presence of P.W. Tajammal Hayat and further stated that on 24-2-1996, again said on 26-2-1996, he left for Chakwal, got drafted the notice through his Advocate and was accompanied by P.Ws. Tajammal and Mushtaq on which they inscribed their respective signatures after having.Been read out to them which was dispatched by post to the addressee. In his statement he has stated that he is residing in Karachi and reached to his home town on 21-2-1996. He admitted in cross-examination that he did not mention in the notice Exh.P.1, the fact regarding sale of land in question was disclosed to him by P.W. Tajammal, however, he stated to have had disclosed about such fact to his Advocate, who drafted the notice, whereas; according to P.W. Tajammal the appellant is his cousin (paternal- aunt's son) who lived in Karachi and he had disclosed about the sale to the appellant on 23-9-1996 in his house, who asserted his right of pre-emption and in this connection, he never visited Chakwal, however, on 26-2-1996 he along with the appellant/plaintiff and Mushtaq came there and got the notice drafted through the learned Advocate on which he, P.W. Mushtaq and the appellant inscribed their signatures. He produced the copy of notice as Exh.P.W.1. The witness in cross-examination admitted that on 21-2-1996, the appellant had come back to his house from Karachi and on 15-2-1996 maternal-aunt had come who had disclosed to him about the sale and he did not address any communication in Such behalf to the appellant and on his own he came to know about the sale. According to the witness, the aunt had disclosed that the land in question was sold at the rate of Rs,5,000 per Marla. P.W.3 Mushtaq Ahmed stated that he had inscribed his signature on the notice Exh.P.1, drafted in his presence on 26-2-1996 and in the last he had put his hand on the said document, whereas; P.W. Tajammal firstly put his signature on the notice.
8. It is an admitted feature of the case that in the plaint the source of information with regard to the sale of property in question was not given nor even: the venue where he received such information was mentioned. Also, it was not averred that he got the information about the sale of property in question through P.W. Tajammal Hayat who on 23-2-1996 allegedly visited his house in the evening and in his presence he asserted his right of pre-emption as against the said sale and after two days, he stated to have issued notice of Talb-e-Ishhad in presence of the abovesaid P.Ws. Nor any explanation has been furnished by the appellant as to the above said omission on his part, hence; in our opinion it was rightly concluded by the learned Courts below i,e, the trial Judge and the Appellate Court that the evidence led on the point could be afterthought and no implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W. Tajammal could be placed and moreso; for the reason that the appellant did not disclose in the suit that P.W.2 had visited to his house on 23-2-1996 where he disclosed to him about the sale of property in question. From the scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the appellant in support of his case it appears that P.W. Tajammal came to know about through their aunt who disclosed about the said transaction, transactionwhereupon; information to such effect in all probabilities was conveyed to the appellant at Karachi where he was ordinarily residing in connection with his job and thereafter he returned to his home town on 21-2-1996 and on his arrival back to his home it was planned to claim that the appellant came to know about the sale transaction on 23-2-1996 and thereafter he asserted to pre-empt the sale. Otherwise, nothing precluded the plaintiff to say in his suit that he was informed in his house by his cousin Tajammal about sale of property and he immediately asserted his right to pre-empt the sale, hence; for sustainable reasons borne on record of the case all the three learned Courts did not place reliance on the testimony of P.Ws., which consequently adversely affected the second demand materially to which no exception could be taken. The reasons found favor with the learned trial Judge, First Appellate Court and the learned Single Judge in the High Court having concurred with the conclusions arrived at by both the said Courts based on evidence, correctly appraised, calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No material piece of evidence germane to the decision on Issue No,1 appears to have been misread, misconstrued or omitted from consideration.
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal being without any substance is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.