' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This civil revision is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below in a suit for possession by way of pre-emption in respect of the property fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The respondent- vendee contested the suit. Controversy gave rise to framing of issues. Both the parties produced their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 13-2-1999. Appeal preferred, also, met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 13-8-2001. This civil revision assails concurrent judgments and decrees.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below misread/mis-construed the evidence available on the record, and, thus, arrived at incorrect conclusion in non-suiting the petitioner.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent, in opposition, argued that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact, which is immune from attack in civil revision, in absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner, Manzoor Elahi and Gulsher Khan are real brothers. They owned joint land including the suit-land along with others. Partition took place between them and mutation No,595 giving effect to the partition was sanctioned on 3-10-1997. Suit-land fell to the exclusive share of Gulsher vendor. He sold out the same to the vendee/defendant on 9-1-1998. Order of partition was challenged before the Revenue hierarchy, unsuccessfully. The partition remained intact. The petitioner, thus, lost his co-ownership in the suit-land. The petitioner had no superior right of preemption on the basis of ownership either on the date of sale, institution of suit or at the time of decree.
6. The petitioner had also pleaded in the plaint superior qualification on the ground of contiguity.
He, while examining himself, as PW did not utter a single word in support of this plea. No arguments were raised before the learned Courts below to this effect. Plea of contiguity seems to have been abandoned by the petitioner-plaintiff. However, the learned counsel vehemently canvassed his superior right on the ground of contiguity seeking strength from Exh.P.4, Aks Shajra. According to this document Killa No,14 owned by the petitioner is contiguous to Killa. No,6, fell into the lot of vendor in partition.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent with reference to Muhammad Akram and another v. Mst. Farida Bibi and others (2007 SCM R 1719) argued that mere production, of Aks Shajra in a case of factual controversy, without examining Patwari in court does not prove the document, even if the same is exhibited without objection. View of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the case in hand, where Aks Shajra was produced and no Revenue Official was examined in its support. In the absence of any assertion by the pre-emptor in his statement and non-cross-examination to defendant pleading non-existence of contiguity, goes a long way against the preemptor. The petitioner, thus, 'had no superior right of pre-emption either as co- sharer or on the ground of contiguity.
8. Suit earned dismissal for nonperformance of talbs. The pre-emptor while appearing as P.W.-1 deposed knowledge of sale on 7-2-1998 at 9-10 a.m. In his house through Muhammad Aslam, P.W.2. He claims to have performed Talb-iMuwathibat , then and there. P.W.3 corroborated his version. Rapt Roznamcha Exh.D.1 was produced through Allah Bakhsh Patwari D.W.-2. He deposed that copy of mutation No,598 was issued to the pre-emptor on 10-1-1998. Talb-i- Mawathibat was made on 7-2-1998 and notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was sent on 13-2-1998. Pre-emptor having obtained copy of mutation No,598 on 10-1-1998 failed to perform talbs within prescribed period of limitation, hence, lost his right of pre-emption. Pre-emptor also filed a suit for grant of injunction against the vendee/defendant on 17-1-1998, claiming restraint order, in protection of his possession. According to his own showing, he was not aware of the sale in dispute. Had the sale not been in the knowledge of the pre-emptor on the said date, there was no cause for him against the vendee- defendant. Both the learned Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact holding that the petitioner had the knowledge of sale but failed to perform talbs as prescribed by law within time.
No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out in this regard. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below without any misreading or non-reading of evidence is not challengeable. Interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is declined.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merits is dismissed.