' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of both these petitions wkich are directed against the same consolidated judgment, dated 24-11-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.Rs, Nos.1664 and 1665 of 2003 involving common questions of facts and law.
2. The suits filed by the respondents for possession of land through pre-emption were dismissed on 13-7-2002 by the trial Court on the ground that requirements of law as to Talb-i-Ishhad had not been properly fulfilled, although on merits, it was found that they had superior right of pre-emption.
3. The appeals filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad were accepted through judgment, dated 19-8-2002. The findings of the trial Court on the question of Talb-i-Ishhad were reversed by holding that provisions of law as to issuance of notice were duly complied with. The suits were decreed. It appears from the judgment that the petitioners were not allowed to seek reversal of the findings on merits as to right of pre-emption without filing cross- objections. Being aggrieved of this judgment, the petitioners filed C.Rs, Nos.1664 and 1665 of 2003 before the Lahore High Court which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 24-11-2003 against which leave to appeal is sought.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He contends that it was not the requirement of law to file cross-objections where the respondents in appeal wanted to support on any ground which had been decided against them. There is no cavil with this principle of law but we find that before the High Court, they only pressed the issuance of Talb-i-Ishhad. He maintained that Talb-i-Ishhad had not been proved through primary evidence by producing original notice whereas copy of notice mentioned by the plaintiffs was produced and further it was though sent through registered post but not with acknowledgment due receipt.
5. We have examined the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners. The notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was sent through registered post which is evident from postal receipt produced in evidence. The Postmaster of the area appeared as witness and stated that he had brought the record which bears his signatures after satisfying himself that it was delivered to the addressee. P.W.2 Altaf Hussain, postman clearly stated that the registered envelops delivered to the petitioner and his signatures were obtained on the receipt which was available on the record.
According to section 13(3) of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991, the requirement was to prove sending dispatch of notice. When questioned learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the correctness of the address of the petitioners. This being so, the said notice shall be presumed to have been delivered to the petitioners-addressee by virtue of section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Learned counsel submitted that it was the requirement of law that notice should have been sent through registered post acknowledgment due. In this case, it was not accompanied by acknowledgment receipt. The requirement of acknowledgment due receipt appears to be one of the modes to satisfy that it had reached the addressee. The delivery of the post has been proved through other evidence of unimpeachable character as such, in our view, the relevant provisions of law have been substantially complied with.
6. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. These petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.