' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Facts leading to this civil revision are that the respondent filed a suit for pre-emption on 21-12-1994 alleging that he was Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar in the suit land and that sale had taken place for a consideration of Rs,400,000 and not against Rs,700,000.
Suit was contested by the petitioners and the trial Court after framing certain issues out of pleadings of the parties and recording evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 22-6-1999. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, who upheld findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree, dated 17-4-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Ishhad as only one witness namely Muhammad Khalid was produced as P.W.4, which was sufficient ground for dismissal of suit being contrary to the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Further submits that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was given by Rana Peer Muhammad, Advocate and not by the respondent despite the fact that power in favour of the said Advocate was not delegated by the pre-emptor, thus the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad is illegal and unwarranted.
According to the learned counsel notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was admittedly written on 1-12-1994, whereas the witness deposed that they approached Rana Peer Muhammad, Advocate on 4-12- 1994, which is a sufficient ground to treat the said notice as forged and fictitious document, thus the requirement of Talbs being not fulfilled strictly in accordance with law, the respondent's suit was liable to be dismissed. Further contends that respondent was not a co-sharer in the suit Khata, hence finding of the trial Court on issue No,10 dealing with the superior right of preemption was erroneous and that even otherwise the witnesses of the respondent were not trustworthy/truthful.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. There is no doubt that revisional jurisdiction is limited, however, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the concurrent findings are not sacrosanct and if some material irregularity, non-reading/misreading of evidence is found in the findings of the Courts below, High Court can interfere in the matter and the revision is competent. Reliance is placed on Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others (PLD 2007 SC 609) and Mubarik All through L.Rs, v. Amroo Khan through L.Rs, (2007 SCM R 1714). So far merits of the case are concerned, suffice it to say that in the matter of preemption the service of notice of Talb-eIshhad is a prerequisite and if the performance of the same is not proved beyond any shadow of doubt as well as in the prescribed form, then the whole structure shall fall down.
6. In the instant case, admittedly, one witness was produced to prove that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was served, whereas according to Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, two witnesses were to be produced, rendering the said notice a defective one and making it a case of non-performance of said Talab in the true spirit of section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. It also transpires from the record that notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was given by Rana Peer Muhammad, Advocate and not by the preemptor himself and admittedly Rana Peer Muhammad, Advocate, was not delegated powers by the pre-emptor authorizing him to issue such notice. There is another aspect of the matter that PW.5 did not depose in clear terms that he made Talb-e-Muwathibat immediately in the same meeting, which fact is also confirmed by P.W.4 who failed to state that pre-emptor had immediately made Talb-e-Muwathibat in the same meeting without loss of time, meaning thereby that Talb-e-Muwathibat was also not made in accordance with law, whereas the findings recorded by the lower Courts are contrary to the evidence available on record, which is a sufficient ground for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 22-6- 1999 and 17-4-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, are set aside and suit of the respondent is dismissed.