' KHALIL AHMAD, J.---The petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of land detail of which is given in para. No,1 of the plaint. He claimed right of pre-emption qua the respondent being Shaf-e-Sharik, Shaf-e-Khalit and Shaf-e-Jar. It was alleged that he came to know that the land was sold on 4-3-1996 and it came to his knowledge on 5-3-1996 whereupon he at once declared to exercise his right of pre-emption in presence of the witnesses and thereafter sent notice of Talbe-Ishhad through registered post. A.D. In accordance with law and filed the suit on 28-3-1996.
2. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement and taking certain legal as well as factual objections. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge framed issues and after recording of evidence vide judgment and decree dated 14-6-2003 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3-2-2005. Hence, this petition.
2A. The petitioner in the plaint has not mentioned the place where he was informed of the sale transaction or named the persons present at that time. In his cross- examination he categorically admitted that he acquired knowledge of sale on the day when the sale-deed was registered. It is an admitted fact that the sale-deed was registered on 4-3-1996. The notice of Talbe-Ishhad was written and registered on the second day of getting knowledge of the sale-deed. Ghulam Rasool P.W.3 from whom the petitioner claimed to have acquired knowledge on 4-3-1996 stated on oath in his cross-examination that he gathered knowledge of sale-deed on the third day of its registration and that he was informed by Muhammad Masood a relative of the petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4 in his examination in chief stated that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was written after 4/5 days of the sale-deed. Muhammad Ismail petitioner categorically stated that it was 12/1.00 noon when he got information of sale for the first time through Ghulam Rasool (P.W.3), which facts is denied by Muhammad Yasin P.W.6 who stated that Ghulam Rasool came at about 4-00 p.m. To lay information of sale. It is thus clear that Talb-e-Mawasibat was neither made on 5-3-1996 nor on 4- 3-1996 and as such it does not stand proved in accordance with law. The learned Civil Judge relied upon PLD 2001 SC 13, 1992 SCMR 1886, 2002 CLC 714, 1995 PLD Lahore 344, 1999 MLD 3335, 2001 SCMR 1651, 2001 PLD C Lahore 194, 2000 SCMR 216, PLD 2002 SC 488, and came to the conclusion that Talb-e-Mawasibat is to be made without any loss of time after gaining knowledge of the sale- deed and while performing second talb i.e, Talb-e-Ishhad the plaintiff must attribute such words which he had already made in Talb-e-Mawasibat. It was further pointed out by the learned Civil Judge that Ohulam Rasool deposed that:-- which shows that he had no knowledge of the contents of the notice.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2005 SCMR 1201, 2001 SCMR 798, 2006 SCMR 1410 to contend that minor discrepancies of time would not come in the way of pre-emptor and that service of registered notice by pre-emptor containing the names of two truthful witnesses before whom Talb-e-Ishhad was allegedly made amounted to substantial compliance of the provisions of section 13(3) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. While learned counsel for the respondent has supported the concurrent findings of the Courts below and relied on 2008 SCMR 37, PLD 2008 Lahore 7 and PLD 2008 Lah. 687 to contend that petitioner failed to perform the requisite talbs as no time, date and place was mentioned in the plaint when the suit was filed. He has also placed reliance on PLD 2001 SC 13.
4. In 2007 SC 302 the august Supreme Court approved earlier view of the Apex Court and the dictum laid down in case of Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bukhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Fazal Subhan and others v. Mst. Sahib Jamila and others PLD 2005 SC 977 wherein date, place and time in the plaint were considered necessary to establish the performance of Talb-i-Mawasibat and also the date of issuance of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in terms of section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that Talb-e D. Mawasibat and Talb-e-Ishhad have not been proved.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality, irregularity or substantial error in the judgments of the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.