' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-5-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad dismissing his suit for possession through pre-emption.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Sami Ullah filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent Muhammad Ibrahim to pre-empt the land measuring 3 Kanals .13 Marlas situated in Chak No,34/GB Tehsil and District Faisalabad was previously owned by Muhammad Aslam who sold the same to the respondent Muhammad Ibrahim through Mutation No,1127 dated 17-9-1995 for a consideration of Rs,48,000. The petitioner/plaintiff came to know about the sale transaction on 4-1-1996 through Jaffar All P.W. And then attorney of the petitioner announced his superior right of pre-emption on the basis of Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar.
It is also averred in the plaint that on 5-1-1996 the special attorney of the petitioner as well as P.Ws.
Went to the respondent and asked him to transfer the pre-empted land in favour of the petitioner after receiving the sale consideration who refused to do the same. The petitioner sent registered notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to the respondent on 9-1-1996. The respondent refused to accept the request of the petitioner and then he filed the suit for possession through pre-emption.
3. The respondent/defendant contested the suit by filing written-statement controverting the contents of the plaint on legal as well as on factual grounds and further averred that sale transaction took place on 17-9-1995 and that time respondent was abroad and in his absence Ali Ahmad being Attorney of the petitioner had no authority to announce Talb-iMuwathibat as well as Talb-i-Ishhad as the said talbs had to be fulfilled by the petitioner himself. It was further averred that Muhammad Aslam vendor before selling the land asked the petitioner to purchase the land but he failed to do so he has no amount at that time. It was also averred that talbs as required under section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 has not been fulfilled by the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. The learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- -
(1) Whether the plaintiff has right of pre-emption qua the vendee/ defendant and has fulfilled the conditions of Talbs and preemption decree can be passed in his favour? OPP
(2) What was the effect of preliminary objections Nos.1 and 6 of the written statement? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
(5) Relief.
5. In support of his plea the petitioner produced Ghulam Rasool as P.W.1, Jaffar Ali as P.W.2, Anyat Ullah as P.W.3, Ali Ahmad as P.W.4, he himself appeared as P.W.5, Zulfiqar as P.W.6 and Sabir Ali as P.W.7 and also produced documentary evidence i.e, notice as Exh.P.1, Power of Attorney Exh.P.2, copy of Mutation No,1127 Exh.P.3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Exh.P4, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Exh.P.5 and Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.6 and closed his evidence. In rebuttal the respondent has produced Ahmad Bakhsh as D. W.1, Manzoor as D.W.2 and he himself appeared as D.W.3. The respondent also produced in evidence documentary evidence in the shape of attested copy of Mutation No,1127 as Exh.D.l, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 as Exh.D.2 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 and Exh.D.3 and closed his evidence. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and going through the record as also the evidence documentary as well as oral dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 19-10-2005.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad which was also dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment and decree dated 19-5-2006. Hence this revision petition.
5-A Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on the record and the learned appellate Court especially has also not properly appreciated the contents of the power of attorney given to the father of the plaintiff/petitioner as it was written in the same that he can file a suit and also pursue the litigation of the property of the petitioner in the light of this fact he was competent to file a suit for pre-emption of the disputed property. Later on he himself appeared in the Court as P.W.5 and narrated this fact that he had given the power of attorney to file suit for preemption. In the light of his statement the suit of the petitioner should have been decreed but due to misreading of this fact the petitioner has been non-suited illegally. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and whimsical which are liable to be set aside in rev isional jurisdictional.
5-B Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contested this revision petition and vehemently argued that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff/petitioner in favour of his father Ali Ahmad was the special power of attorney and according to that attorney he was not authorized to file suit for preemption. Only he was authorized to look-after his property and its litigation so the suit was not competent. It is further argued that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are well-reasoned and rightly have been passed in accordance with law.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence oral as well as documentary as also impugned judgments of both the courts below with their assistance and seems that both they have appreciated the entire evidence properly and keeping in view all the aspects of the case passed decrees concurrently in favour of the respondent. Even otherwise the contents of the special power of attorney do not disclose any power to Ali Ahmad P.W. To file preemption suit on behalf of his son. After going through the evidence produced by the parties I am of the considered view that the judgments passed by the courts below are well-reasoned and have rightly been passed in accordance with law which calls for no interference. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. This revision petition has no merit which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.