' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This revision petition is filed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 30-5-2002 whereby the petitioners' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 22-5-2001 was dismissed. The petitioners are vendees under an oral sale dated 25-5-1995 made by the real brother of the respondent pre-emptor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale is evidenced by a receipt dated 25- 5-1995(Exh.D.1) executed by the vendor followed by entry No,358 in the Rapt Rozenamcha dated 3- 7-1995 (Exh.D-2) and finally by the mutation of sale bearing No,899 dated 5-7-1995 (Exh.P.13). The suit for pre-emption was filed on 8-8-1995, wherein knowledge of the sale transaction is claimed to have been gained from Muhammad Nawaz son of Sultan on 21-7-1995 whereupon the respondent pronounced Talb-e-Muwathibat. He dispatched notices of Talb-e-Ishhad (Exhs.P.9 to P.12) on 30-7- 1995. The postal receipts of the said ,notices are Exh.P.1 to .P.4 and the acknowledgement due receipts are Exhs.P.5, P.6, P.7 and P.B.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a very short point namely, that the judgment of the learned appellate Court is superficial in considering the objection raised by the vendees, reflected in issue No,4, and pertaining to the legal effectiveness of the requisite demands/Talbs made by the plaintiff. Although the declaration of Talbs is a mandatory requirement under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (the "Act"), learned counsel contended that the learned appellate Court had arrived at its finding by altogether ignoring the evidence of the petitioner on this issue.
To exemplify the said omission by the learned appellate court, he referred to the fact that Fateh Sher, vendee was admittedly serving in an army unit from 27-7-2005 whereas he is alleged to have been served with the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad at his home address. Accordingly, he claimed that in fact the said vendee was never served with notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. Secondly, he read the statement of the vendor Abdul Majeed, D.W.1 who states that the sale was duly noticed to the respondent pre-emptor but the latter declined to avert the same. Therefore it is claimed that the Talb-e-Muwathibat performed by the respondent pre-emptor on 21-7-1995 was not immediate and hence outside the scope of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah 2007 SCM R 1105, learned counsel emphasized that the service of the Talb-e-Ishhad notices under registered cover acknowledgment due was a mandatory requirement and could not be left to presumption. He added that although the evidence on record was complete, yet the revisional Court cannot substitute the function of the appellate court and, therefore, the appropriate relief in the case was to remand the same to the learned appellate court:
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has stressed that the sale in the case is to be reckoned from the date of mutation of sale namely 5-7-1995. The Talb-e-Muwathibat that is proved on record to be expressed on 21-7-1995 is claimed to be immediate in terms of law. It is followed by the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which is also given in accordance with the terms in section 13 of the Act. With regard to the requirements of service of notice he pointed out that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (supra) pertains to the case where the receipt of notices of Talbe-Ishhad was refused by the parties. In such cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid out a procedure for the proof of service of the notice. He referred to the provisions of section 33 of the Aet to show that C.P.C. Was applicable to the proceedings under the Act; and these included the issuance of notices. On the matter of service of notice, he submitted that the requirements of Order V, C.P.C. Have been complied and, therefore, no question arose as to the deficiency in meeting procedural safeguards in this respect. In so far as the alleged failure by the learned appellate Court to deal with the evidence of the petitioners is concerned, he read from paragraph 9 of the appellate judgment which deals with precisely the evidence that the learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed to have been omitted from the Court's consideration. He finally added that this is a case of concurrent finding of facts by two learned courts below in which non-reading of the record of other illegality in the application of law has not been pointed out, hence no case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out.
5. The Court has given anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The evidence on record is complete and, therefore, the Court is in a position to appreciate precisely the effect of any alleged oversight, by the learned appellate Court. On this matter, the appellate judgment has dealt with the relevant material in paragraph 9 and referred to the, statement of the vender Abdul Majeed, D.W.1 wherein he accepts not having given notice of the sale to the respondents. Therefore, the objection as to a belated Talb-e-Mawathibat is 'wrong and the prayer for remand of the matter to the appellate Court does not appear justified. At the same time, however, the Court is conscious that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its aforenoted judgment in Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (supra) has emphasized the effect of the procedural requirements for the declaration of the Talb under section 13 of the Act. In Muhammad Gul v. Muhammad Afzal 1999 SCM R 724 and. Hayat Muhammad and others v. Mazhar Hussain 2006 SCM R 1410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court described such requirements to, be procedural in nature and, therefore, necessitating substantial compliance only, however, in the (Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah) (supra) that view has been clarified:- "11. The requirement of, "sending a notice in writing" is followed by a rider i,e, "under registered cover acknowledgment due". This signifies that the intention of law is not merely a formal notice on the part of the pre-emptor conveying his intention to pre-empt but a notice served on the addressee to apprise him about his intention to pre-empt. To .Say that mere "sending, of notice" is enough would make the expression "acknowledgement due" redundant. The service of the addressee, as prescribed in law therefore, is imperative."
6. For the quoted reason the Court has examined the record to ascertain whether the respondent pre-emptor has satisfied the requirements of law for the service of the Talbs declared by him. In the first place, the relevant event to precipitate a Talb-e-Muwathibat is the knowledge of the pre- emptor about the fact of sale through any source. In the present case the oral evidence indicates that the vendor Abdul Majeed, D.W.1, offered the property under sale to the respondent preemptor before finalizing the same. This matter has been considered and rejected by the appellate Court on the ground that there is no reliable material, including a notice of the sale, to evidence the offer.
To my mind the mere oral assertion by D.W.1 in the foregoing behalf is insufficient to saddle the respondent/pre-emptor with knowledge of the sale transaction for which corroborative evidence is called for to dislodge a claimant of his statutory rights.
7. However, the case does have interesting features with regard to the service of Talb-e-Ishhad.
There are three vendees in the instant case and the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad must under law be served upon each of them in - order to sustain the respondents' suit for pre-emption. Baga Sher, petitioner No,1 is stated by the postman Haji Khurshid, P.W.2, to have been served twice; once through his son and another time through himself, although the acknowledgment due receipt is un-signed. Muhammad Ameer, petitioner No,2, is claimed by the postman to have been served personally Fateh Sher, petitioner No,3, is stated to have been served through his brother Muhammad Ameer, although at the relevant time the postman accepts that Fateh Sher was serving in the army unit.
8. Following the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its aforesaid judgment Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (supra) the additional element of the acknowledgement due receipt as a procedural requirement, of service casts on the pre-emptor a duty to show that the notice was served and not merely sent. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of presumption to be drawn under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Since service of notice is prescribed by the Act and as the C.P.C. Is applicable to the proceedings under the Act, therefore, an appropriate course is to examine whether the service of notices alleged in the instant case satisfies the conditions of service laid down in the C.P.C. Examined in that light the statement of the postman shows that the first vendee personally received the notice and another notice sent to this second address was received by his son. The second vendee also received the notice himself but the third vendee was served through a member of his family. The provisions of Order V, Rule 15, C.P.C. Permit the service of notice to be effected through a male member of the family, where an agent had not been constituted. In the present case, all three vendees received the notices either personally or through a male member of their families. Accordingly, irrespective of the presumption available to the respondent under section 27 of the General Clauses Act there is cogent evidence on record through the statement of the postman, an independent witness that each vendee was duly serve in accordance with the requirements of the C.P.C.
9. In view of the finding that the three petitioners/vendees were duly served with notices of Talb-e- Ishhad, there does not remain any strength in the petitioners objection to the valid expression of the statutory Talbs by the respondent. Consequently, the Court does not see any merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.