' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.----The petitioner is a vendee of the agricultural land, which sale was effected in his favour vide mutation No, 3149 dated 6-1-2000. The respondent brought a suit for the preemption claiming that he learnt about the sale on 25-4-2000 from Imran Shehzad (P.W.5) at his shop at 5-00 p.m. In the presence of Wali Muhammad 'and made Talb-e-Muwathibat followed by the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad dated 26-4-2000. The petitioner contested the suit and the learned trial Court non-suited the respondent on the issue of Talabs having not been proved, but on appeal, 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 decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Imran Shehzad has appeared as P.W.5 and in the cross-examination stated that it is the vendor Ayyaz who was apprising someone at his shop when he heard that the sale in question has been made, but the name of the person to whom Ayyaz had told about the sale, is not known to him. It is also submitted that according to the judgment reported as Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas All Shah (2007 SCM R 1105), notice of Talb-e-Ishhad has to be served upon the vendee, but in the present case, according to the postman, notice is alleged to have been served upon Muhammad Asif, who was employee of the petitioner, but according to the postman, the petitioner was also present inside his shop and it is most improbable that while, the petitioner was present why would the registered post be handed over to his employee, therefore, as the service of the notice. Of Talb-e-Ishhad is not proved, resultantly, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that though the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are at variance, but both the Courts in their own manner have appreciated the evidence on the record and when the appreciation of the evidence by the superior Court of fact is not shown to be based upon any misreading or non-reading of the evidence, it cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction.
4. For the argument that the name of the person to whom Ayyaz disclosed the sale has not been apprised by Imran Shehzad, suffice it to say that it was permissible for the petitioner to have examined Ayyaz to show that he had not ever disclosed the sale to any one while being outside the shop of Imran Shehzad so as to belie the statement of this witness, but this has not been done and no explanation has been given in this regard. So far as the service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad is concerned, without going into the question .And the application of the aforesaid judgment (2007 SCM R 1105) and also the judgments t through registered post, if upon the correct address, shall be presumed to have been accordingly delivered, it may be held that in the present case, Muhammad Asif has been admitted by the petitioner to be his employee, who according to the postman received the notice; the petitioner has not examined Muhammad Asif to controvert this fact. For the only reason that the petitioner was also present inside the shop and the postman should have served the notice specifically upon the petitioner, suffice it to say that the lapse on the part of the official cannot be made vice of the respondent's case, to knock him out of the litigation. Resultantly, I am not convinced that the present case is covered by the above-referred judgment reported as 2007' SCMR 1105. This petition thus, has no| merits and is hereby dismissed.