' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Malik Muhammad Afzal Khan, petitioner herein, through the instant revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C., has challenged the concurrent judgments/decrees, dated 19-1-2005 and 26-4-2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge-VI and learned Additional District Judge-III Bannu respectively, vide which his suit for pre-emption was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a pre-emption suit against the defendants/respondents in respect of the suit property detailed in the plaint. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that one Sajjad Ali Khan son of Bahader Nawaz Khan was originally the owner of the suit property who sold it to defendants/ respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (Predecessors of respondents Nos.5 to 8) through mutation No,90, dated 22-5-2001 and in order to defeat the preemptive rights of the plaintiff, an exaggerated amount of Rs, twelve lacs and fifty thousands was entered in the said mutation, though factually its value was not more than Rs, fifty thousands. The suit was based on the basis of superior right of pre-emption, co-sharership, contiguity, participator in immunities and appendages, while the defendants were alleged to have got no such qualifications. The plaintiff alleged that after getting knowledge of the suit transaction on 15-9-2001 at 8-00 A.M in his Hujra in presence of Muhammad Rahim and Faridullah Khan through Informer Sher Afzal Khan, he there and then in presence of the said witnesses declared his intention to pre-empt the suit property and, thereafter, on 17-9-2001 issued separate notices to all the defendants through registered post AD for admitting his claim but in vain and hence the suit.
3. When summoned, the respondents contested the suit by filing written statement and the divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of eight issues including relief. The learned trial Judge after recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, where against his appeal also met the same fate, vide judgments and decrees mentioned above, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner argued that the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence brought on record. He contended that the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of non-performance of requisite Talbs was illegal, as the plaintiff has brought on record sufficient evidence wherein his witnesses have categorically affirmed his assertion. He argued that the plaintiff has brought sufficient documentary evidence on record to prove his superior right of pre-emption qua the defendants, but the learned lower Courts have failed to properly appreciate the same in its true prospective and wrongly non-suited him. Lastly, he urged that the minor discrepancies in statements of the P.Ws. Could not have been made basis for dismissal of suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.
4-A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants supported the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below on almost the same grounds enumerated therein.
5. I have gone through the entire record of the case and considered the valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
7(sic). Perusal of the record indicates that the plaintiff in order to prove the factum of Talbs was examined as P.W.9 where he has failed to A mention the time when he was informed about the suit transaction and when he declared his intention to pre-empt the suit transaction. Likewise, the witnesses of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad had not disclosed the time of making Talb-e- Muwathibat by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the notices Exh.P.W.9/1 to Exh.P.W.9/8 has mentioned the time of making Talb-e-Muwathibat as 8-00 a.m, but he is negated in this behalf by the Informer (P.W.6) in his cross-examination. Furthermore, during the Court statement, the petitioner as well as informer and the witness of Talb-e-Isshad who were allegedly present on the spot has negated the factum of time with respect to alleged performance of Talb- e-Ishhad. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to perform Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law.
8. With regard to the claim of superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiff to the suit property, the record reveals that the transaction had taken place in Mouza Nar Sher Mast, while according to the statement of Patwari Halqa examined as P.W.4., the plaintiff is owner of property situated vide Khasra Nos. 221 and 219 which is contiguous to Khasra No,138 of the suit property, while he has got no contiguity with the remaining Khasra numbers in dispute. Thus the petitioner has got contiguity only with Khasra No,138. In these facts and circumstances of the case, both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his superior right of pre- emption against the defendants/respondents and correctly dismissed his suit.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading, non- reading of evidence or misapplication of law so as to warrant interference in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below which are accordingly maintained as the same are based on established principles of appreciation of evidence and the revision petition is consequently dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
' Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.