' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---This single judgment shall also decide connected C.R. No, 1286 of 2006 in titled "Sair Ajab v. Zar Wali Shah and others" because common question of law and appraisal of the same evidence, led at the trial is involved.
' Arguments heard Record perused.
2. In the instant case, land transferred through the mutation No,4450, dated 28-11-1998 was pre- empted by the" petitioner through a separate suit while in the connected petition, land transferred through Mutation No,4451, dated 28-11-1998 was pre-empted through a separate suit. According to the petitioner/plaintiff per averments of the plaints in both the cases he got the knowledge about both the transactions on 3-12-1998 at 11-00 a.m. In Tehsil Court, Takhti Nasrati, District Karak, from his uncle Mir Nawaz Khan, who died during pendency of the suits. The plaintiff has alleged in both the plaints that he expressed his desire to pre-empt the suit-land of both the transactions there and then and then sent the notice Talb-i-Ishhad through registered post A.D. On the given address of the vendees/defendants.
3. The plaintiff was examined as (P.W.2) at the trial, who did not utter a single word about the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat (first talab), therefore, the notices of Talb-i-Ishhad, which is confirmation of the first Talb would hardly fulfil the mandatory requirements of section 13 of the Pre-emption Act (N.-W.F.P.) of 1987. The non-performance of the first Talb or not deposing at the trial to that effect is substantially fatal to the case of the petitioner and no other evidence could repair the fatal damage caused to the case by the petitioner/plaintiff himself.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the plaints, where the date the time of first Talb has been squarely mentioned may be read as evidence in the case. However, his this contention is entirely fallacious and being unsustainable in law, because it is a consistent view of the Courts that pleadings are never held to be a B substitute for legal evidence, which is ordinarily led at the trial.
5. There are many inconsistencies, infirmities and contradictions in the evidence, however, that does not require any further discussion because non-performance of the first Talb is sufficient to dismiss the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. Both the learned Courts below have elaborately discussed this aspect of the case along with other infirmities in the evidence of the petitioner grave in nature and after fair and proper appraisal of the entire evidence recorded concurrent findings on the question of fact, which is not open to interference in limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwal Nain's case PLD 1983 SC 53.
6. For the above stated reasons, this petition and the connected petition No,1286 of 2006 are dismissed with no order as, to costs.