' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--- This order will govern Civil Petitions Nos.1446, ,1447 and 1448 of 2000, involving common questions of facts and law. Mst. Hasan Bano is the petitioner in these matters.
Wali-ur-Rehman and Ghulam Mustafa (in C.P. No,1446 of 2000), Hamidullah (in C.P. No,1447 of 2000) and Daud and Miskeen (in C.P. No,1448 of 2000) are the respondents.
2. The petitioner had filed three Suits bearing Nos.144/1, 148/1 and 149/1 in the year of 1994 against the respondents for possession of land, the details of which are given in the suits, through pre- emption under the provisions of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Ordinance, 1987. Above named respondents contested the suits and the same were dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Mansehra. The appeals preferred against said judgments and decrees were dismissed by learned District Judge Mansehra. The petitioner, thereafter, took up the matter before High Court through Civil Revisions Nos.41 of 2000, 42 of 2000 and 43 of 2000 and the same were dismissed by a learned Single Judge, Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, by the judgments, which have been impugned in these petitions.
3. It was contended before High Court that the petitioner had made "Talbs" in accordance with the law, but the two Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. Learned High Court examined above contention and repelled the same with the observation that the petitioner herself had not made any "Talb" and that, if any, it was made by her husband, who had no implied or direct authority on the date, when alleged Talb-e-Muwathibat was made. High Court also noted that the petitioner herself did-not appear before trial Court to substantiate the plea that Talb was made by her. High Court also noted that even it was not her case that she made-Talb personally, when she came to know about attestation of mutation in favour of the respondents.
High Court concluded that very basic requirement of. Talb-e-Muwathibat was not made in accordance with the law.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Two Courts below and High Court have reached the same conclusion after assessing the evidence in accordance with the established judicial norms. It is not a case of misreading and non-reading or illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The concurrent findings recorded by three forums are not open to any exception. No interference is warranted.
6. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.