' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---The backdrop of this civil revision is that one Mehboob Ahmad son of Umar Draz being original owner of the suit property, sold the same to the vendees Ghazanfar Ali etc. Vide mutation, dated 31-8-2001 in consideration of Rs,1,55,750. Sarfraz Khan etc. Filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Shorkot alleging that in order to avoid plaintiffs' superior right of pre-emption the defendants Ghanzafar Ali etc. Got incorporated sale consideration in the impugned mutation of Rs,2,10,000 and they pre-empted this ,sale on the basis of Shafi Sharik.
Further contends that the plaintiffs came to know about the impugned sale firstly on 26-11-2001 when the plaintiffs along with Muhammad Iqbal and 'Muhammad Khan were at the Dera of Rab Nawaz plaintiff No,3, where defendants Nos. 2 and 3 namely Zafar Abbas and Sabir Ali came and told them about the impugned sale there and then promptly pronounced their superior right of pre-emption and even on the same day the plaintiffs also got registered A.D. Notices of Talb-e- Ishhad duly attested by two truthful witnesses to the defendants. The defendants have been asked time and again to alienate the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs on the receipt of Rs,1,55,750 but they have refused. The suit was contested and certain issues were framed, evidence was recorded and ultimately the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit through judgment and decree, dated 20-11-2004. This was assailed in the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot who vide judgment and decree, dated 2-5-2006 accepted the appeal, decreed the suit of Sarfraz Khan etc. At the rate of Rs, 2,10,000 with all sorts of mutation fee Rs,10,500, District Council fee Rs,10,500 and all improvements charges Rs,10,500. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed the civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Additional District Judge, has not considered the evidence available on record and while reversing the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge misread/nonread the evidence, did not appreciate the petitioners' well reasoned contentions resulting into serious miscarriage of justice. Further submits that the' learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the service of notice which was not affected on the actual addresses of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and despite of admission of P.W.l.And P.W.2. Making it a case of non-compliance of Talbe-Ishhad in the true spirit of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
' Further submits that it is also not appreciated by the learned appellate Court that there is no independent evidence in support of pleadings of the present respondents. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and contended that at the time of impugned sale they pronounced the superior right of pre-emption and at the same day they also got served registered AD notice and Talb-e-Ishhad duly attested by the witnesses and the learned Additional District Judge appreciated the evidence on record and then accepted their appeal.
3. Arguments heard; record perused.
4. The findings of the learned Civil Judge that Talb-e-Ishhad could not bel, proved through cogent independent and confidence inspiring evidence is convincing one as the evidence available on record reveals that during cross-examination P.W.1. Admitted that defendant No,1, is employee of WAPDA who resides in Islamabad/Rawalpindi, notices of Talb-eIshhad were sent to him at the address of Chah Haveliwala Dakhli Mauza Rustam Sargana i.e, entirely at a different address revealing that the service of said notice of Talb-e-Ishhad could not have been effected upon defendant No,1 (present petitioners) at the address given upon registered envelop which was a deliberate act of the respondents and even similar position is with Zafar Abbas defendant No,2 about whom there is a sufficient evidence that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was also not sent at his correct address particularly when P.W.1. Has deposed that he got the service effected upon one Ehsan Tabassum the nephew of the defendants (present petitioners) meaning thereby that it is proved on record that the notices of Talb-e-Ishhad were not served upon the defendants personally. There is another aspect of the matter that P.W.3 and P.W.4. Deposed in their evidence that notices Exh.P.4 to Exh.P.6. Were signed by Rana Muhammad Aqil, Advocate whereas the signatures of Rana Muhammad Aqil, Advocate are not available so it can easily be observed that P.W.3. And P.W.4. Were not present at the time of yvriting the notices of Talb-eIshhad.
5. The service of notice of Talb-eIsshad upon the defendants (present petitioners) could not be proved and as the plaintiffs have failed to prove the performance of Talbs in accordance with Islamic Law of Pre-emption thus they C cannot be entitled for the decree of their suit, these findings if examined in the light of evidence on record cannot be termed erroneous particularly when the matter in dispute revolves around this moot point. Whereas the same is reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that the requirement of law in respect of notice of Talbs is only to intimate the respondents regarding - intention of the plaintiffs to pre-empt the impugned sale transaction but simultaneously the learned Additional District Judge did not consider the evidence on record, Which clearly proves that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not served on the present petitioners because the witnesses produced by the present respondents before the learned Civil Judge deposed differently rather, the documentary evidence in respect of registered envelop speaks in clear terms that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not served on the correct address despite knowing that the concerned person is residing on a different address.
6. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, are virtually an outcome of misreading of evidence, accordingly the impugned judgment and decree, dated 2-5-2006 D passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shorkot is set aside, the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Shorkot, dated 20-11-2004 is upheld dismissing the suit.
' The civil revision is allowed in the above terms.