' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-VI, D.I. Khan in R.C.A. No,61 of 2006 decided on 14-2-2007 vide which, while upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Paharpur in Suit No,510/1 decided on 20-3-2006, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner Mst. Aisha Bibi.
2. Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that Mst. Aisha Bibi filed a suit for pre-emption regarding land measuring 2 kanals fully detailed in the headnotes of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of Wanda Shahbazi, Tehsil Paharpur, District D.I. Khan on payment of Rs,10,000 as sale consideration or whatever is determined by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court summoned the defendant who submitted detailed written statement and out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether plaintiff has got cause of action and locus standi?
(2) Whether the suit of plaintiff is within time?
(3) Whether plaintiff is estopped to sue the defendant?
(4) Whether plaintiff has got superior rights of pre-emption?
(5) Whether plaintiff has performed requisite Talabs according to law of pre-emption?
(6) Whether an amount of Rs,30,000 has been 'fixed and paid in good faith as sale price of the suit property?
(7) What is the market value of the suit property?
(8) Relief.
3. After affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the data available on the record vide judgment and decree in Suit No,510/1 of 2005 decided on 20-3-2006, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-pre-emptor mainly on issue No,5 with respect to the non-observance of Islamic demands in time as envisaged under the provisions of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner bearing No,61/2006 decided on 14-2-2007 having been failed before the learned appellate Court i,e, Additional District Judge-VI, D.I. Khan, Mst. Aisha Bibi has now filed the present revision petition.
4. Mr. Abdul Qayyum Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the requirement of Talbs had already been complied with by the plaintiff-petitioner and the suit was within time i,e, being filed within 120 days from the date of attestation of mutation. It was also argued that the moment the petitioner came to know regarding the suit sale, she declared her intention to pre- empt the suit-land and has performed `Talb-e-Muwathibar followed by notice `Talb-e-Ishhad' and thus duly fulfilled the requirements under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. Reliance was placed on the case of Nazu Khan. v. Karam Hussain Khan through legal heirs (2000 SCM R 1053).
5. Mr. Muhammad Younis Thaheem, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had the knowledge of sale prior to the attestation of mutation and thus, the Islamic demands having not been performed within the stipulated period, the pre-emption right, if any, of the petitioner had been extinguished.
6. I have gone through the documents annexed with the petition and duly considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit Mutation No,574 was entered by the Patwari Halqa on 15-1-2001 and statement of the vendor was recorded through Commission on 3-2-2001 which was subsequently attested on 29-3-2001.
8. It is also to be observed that the vendor is that real brother of the plaintiff-petitioner. Plaintiff appeared as P.W.4 and recorded her statement on Oath before the Court. She was subjected to cross-examination and she admitted that the original owner was her real brother and they had got adjacent houses. It was also admitted that prior to the attestation of mutation, she had gone to the house of vendee Abdur Rauf and asked him not to purchase the suit-land. She also admitted that she had the knowledge of sale transaction prior to the attestation of mutation, so much so that she submitted an application to the Revenue Officer through her son and attorney Hidayat son of Nasir Khan (P.W.5) not to attest the mutation. The attorney of the plaintiff has also appeared as P.W.5 and has admitted the submission of application to t he Revenue Officer not to attest the mutation, but the Revenue Officer, after recording the statement through local commission, attested the mutation. He further admitted that he was in the knowledge of the suit mutation 5/6 days prior to its attestation. This Hidayat P.W.5 is also the alleged informer who conveyed the information to the plaintiff.
9. Scanning of the evidence reveals that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the transaction prior to the attestation of the mutation but not a single word has been uttered regarding performance of first jumping demand and the subsequently information and knowledge as mentioned in the plaint and notice `Talb-e-Ishhad' is a concocted story.
10. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with respect to the filing of the suit within the period of limitation and there is no dispute with respect to this aspect of the case, as the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner has been found to be within time as held by the learned trial Court while recording findings on issue No,2.
11. The judgments and decrees of the learned two Courts below are strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with the established C principles of appreciation of evidence which calls for no interference.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above,. This revision petition fails which is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.