' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondent's suit for pre-emption was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1997, primarily holding that the respondent has failed to prove the Talbs. On appeal of the respondents, the judgment and decree.Of the Trial Court, has been set aside and by reversing the finding on the relevant issue the suit has been allowed; hence this revision.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that Muhamrhad Ali sold the suit-land measuring 60 Kanals situated in Khewat No.117, village Chhanghi, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, in favour of the petitioners, vide registered sale-deed, dated 5-3-1994. The respondent/plaintiff, on 5-7-1994, brought a suit for pre-emption claiming superior right on the basis of being Shafi-e-sharik, Shafi- e-khalit and Shafi-e-jar, and asserting in the plaint that he came to know of the sale on 24-6-1994, and made Talb-i-Muwathibat, whereafter notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was issued on 4-7-1994, followed by the suit, dated 5-7-1994. The suit was contested by the petitioners, and the only relevant issue for the disposal of the present revision is issue No.2, which is with regard to the Talbs.
3. In the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff, has stated that he learnt about the sale on 24-6-1994 at Chhangi and made Talb-i-Muwathibat; in support of his averments he appeared as P.W.1, and for the first time disclosed that the sale was divulged to him on the said date by Muhammad Asim and he made Talb-i-Muwathibat. It may be pertinent to state, that Muhammad Asim is the first cousin of the respondent, anyhow, in his examination-in-chief it is further stated, that at the time when the sale was disclosed and he made Talb-i-Muwathibat, Tariq his real brother and few others were also present; he has not given the time and venue of the first Talb, but in the cross-examination, has stated that it was at his Dera. Muhammad Asim appeared as P.W.2 and claims, that he learnt about the sale from the Patwari at Daska, where he had gone in connection with his agriculture Pass Book on 23-6-1994 and the next day he apprised the respondent of the sale and made Talb-i- Muwathibat. It may be mentioned here, that in the cross-examination, Muhammad Asim (P.W.2), has contradicted the respondent by stating, that no-one else was present, when the sale was disclosed, except the plaintiff, he himself and Tariq. Anyhow, Tariq Mahmood as P.W.3, and has not stated a word, if the sale to the respondent/plaintiff was disclosed by Asim P.W.2, and he made any Talb-i-Muwthibat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the above has argued, that the respondent has failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat, he did not examine any independent witness, according to the plaintiff's own statement in examination-in-chief, certain persons were present at the site; P.W.2, is only the interested witness, who corroborates the admission of the plaintiff as his real cousin. The Patwari, from whom P.W.2 learnt about the sale allegedly on 23-6-1994, has not been examined to corroborate that he is the Patwari, who disclosed, on 23-6-1994, to Asim about the sale.
5. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondent has argued, that irrespective of their relationship the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, are consistent and the petitioners have not been able to create any contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses, resultantly, the Court of Appeal, has rightly set aside the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal.
6. Arguments heard. As regards the statement of P.W.1, the plaintiff/respondent, is concerned that by itself is not of much significance to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat. Muhammad Asim/P.W.2, is a close relative of the respondent/plaintiff and claims that he had come to know of the sale through Patwari on 23-6-1994, the Patwari was neither summoned nor examined, to strengthen or corroborate the statement of P.W.2. Tariq Mahmood/P.W.2, the real brother of the respondent/ plaintiff, who is stated to be present on 24-6-1994, when the sale was disclosed to the plaintiff/respondent, has not uttered a word about this factum. The other persons, who according to the statement of plaintiff were present at the relevant time, could be the independent witnesses, in this behalf; for no good reasons have been produced by the respondent/plaintiff; besides, Asim/P.W.2, in his cross-examination, has stated that 'none else was present, this is a clear contradiction to the statement-in-chief of the respondent. All the above are sufficient to establish, that the entire story of learning the sale from Patwari by Asim and further disclosure to the respondent and making of Talb-i A Muwathibat, is an afterthought. These conspicous aspects of the case have not been considered by the learned Appellate Court, which judgment and decree is the result of misreading and non-reading of the record, whereas the learned trial Court, has given cogent reasons by applying its mind to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2; this judgment and decree could not have been set aside by the learned Court of Appeal on the proper reading and appraisal of evidence. Resultantly, by allowing this revision petition, the judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal, is set aside with the result that the suit of the respondent stands dismissed.