' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 16- 4-2002 in Civil Revision No,472 of 2002 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the said revision was dismissed maintaining the judgments dated 10-10-1997 and 4-12-2001 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class Bhalwal and Additional District Judge, Sargodha respectively, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for possession through pre- emption in respect of suit-land admeasuring 23 Kanals, 3 Marlas against the respondents/defendants on the ground of being co-sharer owner of adjacent land which suit was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhalwal holding that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove Talb-i-Ishhad consequently his right of pre-emption has extinguished and on the said sole ground suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No,166 of 1997/2001 which was heard of Additional District Judge, Sargodha who dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhalwal. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No,472 of 2002 which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment by learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore affirming the judgments and decrees of two Courts below.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned single Judge and two Courts below have non-suited the petitioner only on the ground of not proving Talb-i-Ishhad as notice of Talb-i-Ishhad as required under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 could not be produced before the trial Court the same was misplaced but subsequently, the same was traced out and was produced before the Appellate Court with an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. For allowing the said envelope containing notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to be admitted in evidence which application for additional evidence was allowed vide judgment, dated 9-1-1991 passed by Additional District Judge in C.A. 198 of 1997. He submitted that however, the respondent preferred revision application before the High Court whereby the said revision was allowed and judgment, dated 9-1-1991 passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the District Judge, Sargodha to dispose of the appeal afresh when Civil Appeal No,168 of 1997/2001 was heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Sargodha who dismissed the same holding that the said envelope was not tendered in evidence at the proper stage but late stage and did not consider the sending of notice consequently, held that Talb-i-Ishhad has not been proved because of it being not exhibited and thus, would not be considered to be available on record. Learned counsel submitted that notice was in fact sent as per requirement of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act but as it was not produced and exhibited at the proper stage i.e, before the trial Court, therefore, the appellate and revisional Courts have erroneously and illegally discarded it from consideration consequently, the impugned judgment and judgments of two Courts below cannot be sustained in law.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the said contentions.
6. Admittedly there is no evidence on record to prove the sending of notice as required under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and in absence of same learned single Judge and two Courts below were right in holding that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove Talb-i-Ishhad 4s per requirement of law. Learned single Judge in para.8 of the impugned judgment observed as under:- "(8) On the touchstone of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) and the case-law cited above, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has not been able to prove Talb-i-Ishhad in this case. Neither the original notices have been produced on the record nor, notice of production of the original notice was issued to the respondents. No permission for producing secondary evidence as required under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) was obtained and receipt of the notice has not been proved. There is concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner, which cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of C.P.C. As held in case of Aziz Ullah Khan v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs."
' No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any legal or factual infirmity is pointed out with the impugned judgment and judgments of two Courts below. The concurrent finding of fact about non-sending of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad as per requirement of law of the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court affirming/concurring findings of fact of two Courts below are unexceptionable, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court, consequently, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out which is declined and the petition is dismissed.