' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioner calls in question the validity of the judgment and decree, dated 18-5-2000 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption stating therein that the land, which has been fully described in para. 1 of the plaint, was purchased by the respondent vide Mutation No,1016, dated 29-6-1994 for consideration of Rs.1 lac but in order to deprive the petitioner from exercising the right of pre-emption, a fictitious amount was got entered as Rs.2 lacs. The petitioner claimed his superior right of pre-emption on the basis of Shafi-Shareek, Shafi-eKhaleet and Shafi-e-Jar. It was also stated by the petitioner that he has fulfilled all the requirement of talbs under the law and lastly prayed that the suit be decreed in his favour. The averments of the plaint were controverted by the respondent by filing the written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. The respondent/defendant being not satisfied of the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kharian. The learned Additional District Judge, Kharian heard the arguments of the respective parties and finally accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree, dated 18-5-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said judgment, dated 18-5-2000 filed a Civil Revision No,1588 of 200Q. The aforesaid civil revision was finally decided by this Court on 23-10- 2003 whereby the same was dismissed on merits. The petitioner further assailed the order, dated 23-10-2003 passed by this Court before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Civil Appeal No,145 of 2005 decided on 7-11-2005, whereby the case was remanded to this Court for rewriting the judgment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerned preferably within a period of six months. The case came up for hearing on 23-6-2008 and the same is being disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the learned 1st Appellate Court on Issue No,2 are erroneous and also result Of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Added that the petitioner has successfully fulfilled the requirement of talbs as provided in the law but the learned 1st Appellate Court not only misinterpreted the law brit has also wrongly appreciated the, material available on the record. Next contended that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in the following judgments that the petitioner cannot be non-suited because of non-mentioning the date, time and place of knowledge of sale and date of issue to notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint. Lastly contended that although the petitioner has not mentioned time, date and place in the plaint but stated while appearing in the witness-box and this fact was also corroborated by the other witnesses appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Reliance is placed on Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315, Altaf Husain v Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed though ,Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314, Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329, Suba Khan and another v. Hafiz Mian Muhammad 2007 SCM R 719, Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1995 SCM R 362 and Abdul Hamid v. Senior Vice-President, National Bank of Pakistan and 3 others 1995 CLC 950.
4. Conversely, Mr. Atif Amin, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the suit of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on single score; that the petitioner has not fulfilled the mandatory requirement as given in section 13 of the Pre-emption Act and also the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir. Muhammad through L.Rs. And others PLD 2007 SC 302. Further contended that the petitioner, even otherwise, could not prove the requirement of talbs through any cogent, convincing and impartial evidence and badly failed to prove his pre-emptive right about the sale in question.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly and undeniably, the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of talbs by the mentioning the date, time and place of knowledge of the same and date of issue to notice of Talb- i-Ishhad. When this was confronted by referring para 3 of the plaint wherein the aforesaid requirement of law to fulfil the talbs are missing, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not offer any explanation. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid judgments but the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already considered those judgments in para 5 of the latest judgment i.e, Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. And others PLD 2007 SC 302. In the presence of the principle laid down by the, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment supra, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned 1st Appellate Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect, illegality, irregularity, legal infirmity or material defects with the judgment delivered by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
7. Thus, the petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.