' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court, dated 1-12-2004 and of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 20-1-2006 whereby a suit for possession through preemption filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner defendant argued that the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was delivered to the brother of the petitioner who has a separate residence from the petitioner. This fact, however, is not relevant for the purpose of proving Talb-e-Ishhad. Here it may be noted that the obligation of the respondent-plaintiff was to send the notice of Talb-e-Isshad by giving the correct name and address of the petitioner-defendant. The learned Courts below have rightly held that this obligation was fulfilled by the respondent-plaintiff. Even before me, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name and address of the petitioner was correctly given by the respondent-plaintiff.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there were material discrepancies in the testimony of the P.Ws. In relation to the notice of Talb-e-Isshad. In particular, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that P.W.1, namely, Zafar Ullah, who is one of the witnesses to the notice of Talb-e-Isshad, stated that the notice was prepared by Malik Zia, Advocate. He was contradicted by the plaintiff, who appeared as P.W.3 and deposed that the notice was prepared by Malik Abdul Sattar. It was contended that this was a material discrepancy in the testimony of the P.Ws, which proved that they were not truthful, and, therefore, could not be relied on Learned counsel added that this contradiction as well as other discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence have been ignored by the Courts below.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-preemptor was not in a position to controvert the above submission. He merely stated that Malik Abdul Sattar, Advocate was working in the chamber of Malik Zia, Advocate. In support of this contention, he also produced in Court a certificate issued by the President of the Wazirabad Bar Association. This certificate and the fact that Malik Abdul Sattar is working in the chamber of Malik Zia, is of no consequence in the circumstances noted above. I have again gone through the testimony of the plaintiff who appeared as P.W.3 and his witness Zafarullah (P.W.1) with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The exact words used by the witnesses can lead to only one inference that they are not being truthful because one of them i.e the plaintiff has unambiguously stated that it wasMalik Abdul Sattar, Advocate who inscribed the notice while Zafarullah (P.W.1) is equally emphatic that the notice was written by Malik Zia, Advocate. The third witness, namely, Aslam (P.W.2) did not name any Advocate. Since the probity of witnesses is a mandatory requisite of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, it follows that the notice of Talb-e-Isshad was not proved through truthful witnesses. In the circumstances, the suit of the respondent-pre-emptor must fail.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the requirement as of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was merely procedural. This argument, however, is not in accordance with the wording of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
8. The learned Courts below have not read the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 which shows a serious contradiction between the two. In the circumstances, the impugned decrees are a result of non- reading of evidence. The same are therefore, set aside with the result that the suit of respondent- plaintiff is dismissed.