' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Suit for preemption instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 7-4-2004 where against the appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 27-4-2005. This is revision petition in this context.
2. Since the core issue in the matter was about non-performance of Talbs by the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Courts below concurrently qua issue No,3 have been assailed by the learned counsel who endeavours to dislodge the correctness thereof with reference to the evidence led by the partied. It is contended that non-production of Muhammad Afzal was inconsequential.
' The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the concurrent view taken by the Courts below and contends that the findings concurrently recorded are fully justified from the evidence on the record.
3. Record has been received and perused.
4. Since the fate of the matter is dependent upon the fact of performance or otherwise of Talbs in accordance with law, the assertion made in the plaint and the evidence led by the petitioner has been considered. According to the averments made in the plaint, the sale of the suit land took place through mutation No,1157 dated 13-6-1995. It was pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the petitioner learnt about the same on 19-6-1995 from Muhammad Afzal, Sardar Khan and Azmat Ullah when he declared his intention that he would claim his superior right in the land through preemption. The plaint is silent as to where and at what time such a knowledge was acquired by him from the persons mentioned above. He, however, while appearing as P.W.2 disclosed the timing i.e, 10-00 a.m. And the place as Tehsil Office, Mianwali where Sardar Khan, according to him, informed about the sale in presence of Muhammad Afzal and Azmat Ullah. Sardar Khan could not be produced as he had died whereas Muhammad Afzal was not produced despite the fact he was alive and healthy. Azmat Ullah Khan appeared as P.W.3. However, his testimony proved to be unconvincing. In such circumstances the non-production of Muhammad Afzal for no reason cannot be said to be inconsequential. His non-production was fatal to the cause of the petitioner.
The petitioner failed to prove the performance of Talbs as warranted by S.13 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 resulting in the extinguishments of his right of pre-emption. The concurrent view thus taken by the Courts below on this vital issue does not call for interference by this Court.
' As a result of the above, the revision petition is without merit and is dismissed accordingly.