' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Instant single judgment shall decide the present petition (C.R. No,1181 of 2005), filed by Abdul Majeed, and Cross Objection (C.R. No, 1879 of 2005), filed by Amjad farooq, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they are between the same parties and directed against single judgment.
2. Muhammad Anwar, son of Abdul Latif, who was owner of a shop attached with House No,BV-360, description whereof has been given in Para 1 of the plaint, (hereinafter referred to as disputed shop) sold the same to the respondent, vide registered sale deed dated 28-5-1995 for a consideration of Rs,50,000. The petitionei, then, filed the suit for possession through pre-emption, against the respondent, inter alia, pleading that the market value of the disputed shop is Rs,30,000 but in order to defeat petitioner's right of pre-emption ostensible price of Rs,50,000 has been shown in the sale deed; he has superior right of pre-emption as "Shafi Khalit" and "Shafi Jar"; he performed "Talab-eMuwathibat" on 9-7-1995 at 8-00 p.m, in the presence of Muhammad Munir Butt and also performed "Talab-e-Ishhad" by sending registered notice, on 10-7-1995, to the respondent, which was attested by two truthful witnesses. Initially, the learned trial Court rejected the plaint, vide order dated 23-10-1996, however, the said decision was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 19-10-2002. In the post remand proceedings, the petitioner filed the amended plaint and the respondent submitted written statement, thereby, controverting the contents of the plaint and denying petitioner's right of preemption and his performance of "Talabs".
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues, recorded evidence of the parties and after deciding issue No,1 (superior right of pre-emption) and issue No,4 (requirement of Talab) against the petitioner proceeded to dismiss the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 13-5-2004. The petitioner filed the appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, while giving findings on issue No,1, has held that "the appellant and the respondent having equal superior right over the pre-empted shop" and reversed the findings of the learned trial Court and decided the said issue in favour of the appellant, however, findings on issue No,4 were maintained and the appeal was dismissed, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17-3- 2005, hence the present revision by the petitioner and the cross objection by the respondent.
2-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3, states that as soon as P.W.2 informed about the sale of the shop to the petitioner, he made jumping demand and on the next day he fulfilled all the requirements of "Talab-e-Ishhad" by sending registered notice to the respondent, which was attested by two truthful witnesses. He further submits that Muhammad Sharif had died, therefore, he could not produce him in evidence and by producing the postman and P.W.3, performance of "Talab-e-Ishhad" was proved. He adds that the learned Additional District Judge has misread the record. He has relied upon Arshad Mehmood and others v. Makhdoom Ahmad Ghaus (2006 CLC 1046). Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the aforesaid contentions and supporting the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No,4, submits that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No,1 are not supported by evidence on record and that he ignored to consider the sale deed (Exh.D.1). He has relied upon Mst. Bhagay v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (PLD 2004 Lahore 12), Wilayat Khan v.
Muhammad Sharif through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others (2004 CLC 240), Muhammad Abdullah and another v. Muhammad Arshad, Ali Muhammad v. Ghulam Muhammad (2003 CLC 282), Nadir Khan v. Inayat (2005 YLR 1031), Malik Nazir Ahmed through his legal heirs v. Muhammad Yar (2004 SCMR 1377), Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Aslam (2003 CLC 1555) and Mst. Mahmooda Begum v. Syed Hassan Sajjad and 2 others (2004 YLR 845).
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Although the learned trial Court framed as many as ten issues, yet the most crucial and contested issues between the parties, on which the parties are really at variance, are issues Nos.1 and 4, which for ready reference are reproduced below:--- "Issue No,1 ' Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee/defendant?OPP ' Issue No,4 ' Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of talbs are envisaged under the law?OPP"
' The learned trial Court, while deciding both the afore-noted issues in favour of the respondent dismissed petitioner's suit, while the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings on issue No,1, held that both the parties have equal right over the pre-empted shop, maintained the findings on issue No,4 and dismissed petitioner's appeal.
4. The petitioner in order to prove performance of "Talab-e-Ishhad" produced Postman (P .W .1), Muhammad Munir Butt (P.W.2) and another Postman (P. W.4) as according to him the other witness namely Muhammad Sharif had died. As regards "Talab-e-Muwathibat", the petitioner is relying upon the testimony of P.W.2 coupled with his own statement. The learned appellate Court, after adverting to and discussing the evidence, produced by both the parties, and appreciating it, came to the conclusion that "Talab-eMuwathibat" was not made in accordance with law. To my mind, the said findings are not open to exception. Admittedly, the disputed shop was sold on 28-5- 1995, through the registered sale deed, while it has been stated in the plaint and deposed by petitioner's witnesses that " Talab-e- Muwathibat" was made on 9-7-1995. It is the case of the petitioner that on 9-7-1995 A at 8-00 p.m. Muhammad Munir Butt (P.W.2) came to his hous6 and disclosed that the disputed shop was sold by Muhammad Anwar to the respondent and thereby he made jumping demand. The disputed shop was sold through the registered sale deed, therefore, the petitioner, if interested, should have known that the disputed shop was sold. More so, when according to the petitioner, his house is situated towards east of the disputed shop. It is settled law that a registered document is notice to the public and presumption, under" the law, is that every B member of public has knowledge of the registered documents. No evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the respondent concealed the sale for a period of one month and twelve days or it was a secret sale. It appears from the evidence on record, as rightly held by the learned appellate Court, that story of "Talab-e-Muwathibat", made on 9-7-1995, C was concocted. It appears from the record that the petitioner did not make "Talab-eMuwathibat" immediately and cooked up the story that he came to know about sale of the disputed shop on 9- 7-1995 through P.W.2 and then made the 1st "Talab". Additionally, in order to prove "Talab- eMuwathibat" only one witness i.e, Muhammad Munir Butt has been produced, whose statement is full of contradictions and has rightly been disbelieved by both the Courts below. According to P.W.2 some persons told him on 9-7-1995 about the sale of the shop at 11-00 a.m., however, he allegedly informed the petitioner at 8-00 C p.m. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly noticed material contradictions in the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3, which are fatal to the case of the, petitioner specifically with reference to the performance of "Talab".
5. As regards non-production of Muhammad Sharif in the witness box. It is the case of the petitioner that Muhammad Sharif has died, therefore, he could not produce him as his witness. Firstly it has not been proved on record that Muhammad Sharif has, in fact, died and secondly if he has died, then the petitioner, in order to prove his case, should have produced some other evidence. The petitioner, in the absence of Muhammad Sharif, in order to prove "Talab-e-Ishhad", could have produced any other person, who could recognize signatures of Muhammad Sharif and depose that Muhammad Sharif accompanied the petitioner and Muhammad Munir Butt to the office of learned counsel, who drafted the notice for "Talab-e-Ishhad" and Muhammad Sharif signed the notice in his presence. In this context, Muhammad Riaz Ahmed. Advocate, who statedly drafted the notice, could have been the best witness in order to show that the petitioner came, to the office of the advocate along with Muhammad Sharif, who signed in his presence.
6. In view whereof, it has rightly been held by the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirement of both' "Talabs". Findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No,4 are not open to exception and are thus maintained.
7. Now coming to the findings on issue No,1, which have been challenged by the respondent in cross objection. I have examined the site plan in juxtaposition with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge and find that the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No,1 are in consonance with the site plan (Exh.P.4). Site plan shows that the petitioner is residing in the ground floor of the house, which is situated towards East of the pre-empted shop. Learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted with the site plan, has stated that it is incorrect site plan. If it is so, the respondent has not produced any other site plan in order to rebut the said site plan and to prove that the site plan, relied upon by the petitioner, is incorrect. The learned Additional District Judge, while adverting to Exh.D.1, has rightly held that both the parties having equal superior right over the pre-empted shop. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No,1 are maintained.
8. In my view as the impugned judgment is neither contrary to the evidence nor in violation of the principle of administration of justice, thus the judgment F of the learned appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred. If any case is needed, judgments reported as Mir Muhammad alias Miral v, Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1996 Karachi 202),Ilamuddin through legal heirs v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain through legal heirs and 5 others (1999 CLC' 313) and Aasa v. Ibrahim (2000 CLC 500) can be referred.
9. In the above perspective, I have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Additional District Judge did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The impugned judgment is maintained.
10. In view of the above, both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.