' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Vide Mutation No,761 attested on 16-12-1992 the Respondents Nos. I to 3 purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs,4,28,000. On 20-3-1993 the petitionersand the Respondent No,4 filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by pre-emption. According to them, the land had, in fact, been purchased for Rs,1,42,600 and the said amount of consideration noted in the mutation is fictitious. They claimed to be owners of the adjacent land, sharers in amenities and common owners in the Ihata Chah. Performance of talbs was pleaded. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit. They insisted that they had paid Rs,4,28,000 in good faith which is the market value of the land. They denied the other allegations in the plaint, their case was that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale right on the day of the mutation. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 22-11-1995 the learned trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of the petitioners while dismissed the suit to the extent of Respondent No,4. The Respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed a first appeal which was heard by a learned ADJ, Chunian, District Kasur, along with the appeal filed by Respondent No,4. Vide judgment and decree, dated 29-11- 2000 the appeal filed by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed while the appeal filed by Respondent No,4 was dismissed and consequently the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Before I proceed further, I may note here that against the said judgment and decree of the learned ADJ, present civil revision has been filed by the petitioners while C.R. No,749/01 filed by Respondent No,4. The said civil revision was heard at limine on 18-10-2001 and had been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned ADJ has misread the evidence while dealing with the question of talbs. According to him, the mere fact that Respondent No,4 was aware of the sale from the day one would not lead to the inference that the petitioners also had the knowledge of the sale at any time prior to the one mentioned in the plaint. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records. It will be seen that only the matter of talbs is being agitated before me in this civil revision. Now in para-5 of the plaint, it was stated that while the plaintiffs were sitting in a Ihata Chah adjacent to the suit - land on 27-2-1993 mention of the sale in question was made and the plaintiffs made the talb. The same day along with Riasat Ali and Asghar Ali they went to the defendants and made talb-i-ishhad. Thereafter, they obtained the copies of the Revenue Records and gave a written notice to the defendants on 7-3-1993 under registered cover A.D. Now Muhammad Alam petitioner No,3 appeared as P.W.2 on 7-11-1994. He stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale two months thereafter. Theywere sitting in the Ihata Chah along with Asghar Ali and Riasat Ali when Asghar Ali told about the sale and they said that they will file a pre-emption suit. In the cross-examination, he stated that whereas the petitioners reside in Chak No,3 at Okara, the Respondent No,4 resides in the revenue estate in question. He further explained that Muhammad Hussain plaintiff had gone to the revenue estate in question. He fell ill and the other two brothers came to look after him. They were informed of the illness of Muhammad Hussain by the wife of Asghar. He then states that Asghar resides at the same Ihata Chah. He was not aware as to who told Asghar about the sale. He was called upon to be specific about the date of knowledge. He stated that he cannot tell even the month when they came to know about the sale. Then he stated that they had reached the revenue estate at 2-00 p.m. And on the same day Asghar had met them at 4-00 p.m. He admitted that Respondent No,4 filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction.
5. Now Asghar Ali, the alleged informer, appeared as P.W.3. He stated in his cross-examination that Salim was the general attorney of the vendor and he informed him about the sale when Respondent No,4 was also sitting there and that this information was given to him 10 days after the sale. He then stated that the petitioners had come to him at night. They stayed the night with him and next morning at 8-00 a.m. He told them bout the sale. He expressed ignorance that Respondent No,4 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents after the sale. It may be noted that this witness had no where stated the day, month or the year when he informed the petitioners. Rasiat Ali, P.W.4, has not said a word about the first talb.
6. Now I find that the learned ADJ has noted that documents Exhs. P.5 and P.6 relied upon and produced by the petitioners themselves were obtained by them on 25-7-1993 and according to him it is apparent on the face of the said documents that the said date was change into 27-2-1993 whereas on the copy of Exh.P.6 the date of issuance of copy is not discernible. Even in the copy Exh.P.5 it is apparent that the date was 25-2-1993 and was later changed into 27-2-1993. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not much to say when confronted.
7. Now upon a reading of the said evidence, according to Muhammad Alam, P.W.2, the plaintiffs came to know about the sale two .Months thereafter which date has been correctly calculated by the learned ADJ as 16-2-1993. Asghar Ali has not stated any date on which he informed the plaintiffs but according to him he himself acquired the knowledge of the sale along with Respondent No,4, 10 days after the sale. Riasat Ali, P.W.4, has remained absolutely silent regarding the matter of first talb. The said documents Exhs. P.5 and P.6 were obtained on 25-2-1993 while according to copy Exh.D.1 the Respondent No,4 filed a suit against the vendees with reference to the particulars of themutation of sale on 16-12-1992 i,e, the very day the sale was made. Thus, one thing is absolutely certain that the plea taken by the petitioners that they acquired knowledge on 27-2- 1993 is not established on record rather their own evidence shows that they had acquired knowledge of the sale at a point of time earlier than the said date. This being so, there is no evidence on record of a first talb having been made in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. There is no explanation for the other discrepancies also as correctly pointed out by the learned ADJ in his impugned judgment.
8. Now so far as the talb-I-ishhad is concerned, admittedly, there are three vendees/defendants.
The only evidence given in the form of statement of Ikhtiar Ali, Postman, P.W.1, was that Sher Muhammad was delivered the notice who had put his thumb-impressions. This witness has clearly stated that he cannot say that it was Sher Muhammad who was delivered the notice. The witness cited in the report i,e, Khairati Khan has not been produced. Now Sher Muhammad has appeared as D.W.1 and he has stated that he is a School Teacher and he does not put his thumb-impressions on documents. He has specifically denied his thumb-impressions on Exh.P.1. In this view of the matter, the valid delivery of notice even to Sher Muhammad is not proved. There is, of course, no evidence of delivery of notices to the remaining vendees.
9. Having thus, examined the records, I do not find any grounds being made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.