' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Facts of the case, in brief, are that one Yousaf Khan sold the suit land measuring 1 Kanal, 1 Marla, elaborately described in the plaint, to the respondent through sale mutation No,296 dated 31-1-1994 in consideration of Rs,28,000. The petitioner/plaintiff, thereupon, filed the suit for possession through pre-emption claiming his superior right on the basis of Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar and inter alia pleading that the market value of the property is Rs,18,000 while sale consideration of Rs,28,000 has ostensibly been shown and he performed all necessary "Talabs" provided under the law. The defendant contested the suit'through written statement, and besides taking preliminary objections, it was asserted that he paid a sum of Rs,28,000 as consideration, which is the market value of the property and "Talabs" were not made in accordance with law. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and called upon the petitioner to produce his witnesses. The petitioner failed to produce witnesses and the learned trial Court dismissed his suit, vide judgment and decree dated 23-4-1996. Upon filing the appeal, the said decree was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment dated 8-10-1996. In the post remand proceedings, the parties produced the evidence and the learned trial Court, in the ultimate analysis, held that the petitioner has a superior right of preemption; the sale price paid by the respondent was Rs,28,000 and the petitioner failed to perform "Talab-eMuwathibat" and "Talab-e-Ishhad" in accordance with law and proceeded to dismiss the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 12-10-2000. Petitioner's appeal failed, when it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11- 11-2004, hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel, while referring to the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 states that both the Courts have misread the material evidence on record and both the judgments are based on conjuncture and surmises.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Upon the examination of the impugned judgments, I find that both the Courts after giving its findings on issue No,2, dismissed petitioner's suit and appeal. The learned trial Court, after duly adverting to the statements of petitioner's witnesses, specially the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4, has held that the petitioner failed to prove that he has made "Talabs" in accordance with law. The learned appellate Court, after discussing the documents on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he has made "Talab-e-Ishhad" and "Talab-eMuwathibat" as required under the law. To my mind, both the Courts, after overhauling and adverting to the evidence produced by the petitioner and attending to every aspect of the case, came to the unanimous conclusion that the petitioner failed to perform Talabs in accordance with law. I have also given some thoughts to the statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and is of the view that both the Courts did not misread or non- read the statements of these two witnesses. Although in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, when the findings of both the Courts are concurrent, this Court is not called upon to reappraise the evidence on record, yet in the interest of justice, I have examined both the judgments in juxtaposition with the evidence of the parties and is of the view that the findings of both the Courts are not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject. In view whereof, I am not inclined to interfere in both the judgments.
4. Upon the perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the petitioner did not mention time and place of performance of "Talab-eMuwathibat" in the plaint, which is contrary to the principle of law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others (PLD 2007 SC 302). It has inter alia been held in the said case that "it would be mandatory to mention in plaint, the date, place and time of performance of Talab-e-Muwathibat"
5. There cannot be any cavil to the proposition that a litigant cannot be allowed to depart or improve upon his pleadings. And B lead the evidence on the facts, which were not pleaded in the plaint.
6. It is settled law that the findings on questions of fact or law recorded by the courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v.
Aamer Shahzad and others (1999 YLR 610).
7. The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court.
8. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v.
Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gui Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another (2000 SCM R 314), Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 329), Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Muhammad Rashid Ahmed v.
Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).
9. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed.