' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No,1515 of 2006 filed by the petitioner Muhammad Rafiq to impugn the validity of judgment dated 18th of April, 2006, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif accepted the appeal preferred on behalf of respondents dismissing petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption with costs.
2. , Petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against respondents to pre-empt the sale through registered sale-deed dated 10-11-1999 for consideration of Rs,25,000, but in fact, in order to frustrate the right of the petitioner, fictitious amount of Rs,70,000 was mentioned in the questioned sale-deed.
3. , Respondents resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement and taking preliminary objections. The learned Judge of the trial Court upon divergent pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 8 issues and recorded evidence thereon of the parties concerned, and finally decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-6-2005, which was appealed against, and as stated earlier, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, by accepting the same with costs dismissed petitioner's suit. Hence, this civil revision.. Along with the main case, Civil Miscellaneous No,163/C of 2008 has also been filed with the prayer that the applicant be allowed to amend the revision, and Muhammad Hussain be added as a party in the array of respondents.
4. , The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court erred in law by setting aside a well-reasoned judgment delivered by the learned trial Court. Further contended that the petitioner fully proved the Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as required under section 13 of the Pre-emption Act by producing independent and reliable witnesses. Next contended that the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit after evaluating and appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties and particularly in the circumstances when the petitioner fully fulfils the requirement of having the superior right of pre-emption.
5. , Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the onus to prove the Issue No,5 was upon the petitioner and the petitioner miserably failed to prove the Talbs as required under section 13 of the Pre-emption Act. Added that the learned 1st Appellate Court rightly decided Issue No,5 after scanning and re-appreciating of entire evidence on the issue and finally concluded that the petitioner could not fulfil the requirement of Talbs as provided by law and even otherwise the sale made in favour of the respondents was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner because of his ill motive had filed the suit just to blackmail and harass the respondent.
6. , I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. , The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court decided vital Issue No,5 relating to "Talbs" provided under section 13 of the Preemption Act after scanning entire evidence available on the file. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment titled as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302 has ruled that the pre- emptor at the time of filing the suit shall mention the time, date, place, name of informer and witnesses in whose presence the jumping demand Talb-i-Muwathibat was made, whereas the contents of the plaint filed by the petitioner, are silent to this effect that who was the informer, who stated the petitioner (plaintiff) regarding the sale of suit property whereas in the evidence, petitioner stated that one Shameer who informed the petitioner-plaintiff regarding the sale of the suit-land. The law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the fulfilment of the requirement of "Talbs" and their narration in the plaint is unambiguous in the judgment (supra), thus, the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirement of Talb as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Even otherwise the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court is elaborative and there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded on Issue No,5. The petitioner has badly failed to prove the requirement of "Talbs" and consequently petitioner's suit was rightly dismissed.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this with no order as to costs.