' MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.---Abdul Hameed-petitioner/ defendant has filed revision against the judgments and decrees, dated 29-3-2005 and 15-10-2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Gujrat and learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat respectively whereby suit for possession through pre- emption filed by Qudrat Ullah-respondent has been decreed, and petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner purchased land measuring 10-marlas described in the plaint from Ch. Saadat Ali son of Akbar Ali through registered Sale-deed No,4480, dated 1-10-2003 for a consideration of Rs,1,00,000. The respondent came to know about the impugned sale on 1-11-2003 at 6-00 p.m.
Through his nephew Adnan Ashraf in latter's house upon which he made Talb-i-Muwathibat by expressing his intention to preempt the sale. After obtaining copy of sale-deed from the office of Sub-Registrar, Gujrat on 6-11-2003 he fulfilled the requirement of Talb-iIshhad by giving notice to the petitioner through registered post, but he did not receive the same. On 22-11-2003 the respondent filed suit for possession through pre-emption.
3. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. He alleged that respondent came to know about the sale on the very first day and he did not fulfill the requirement of Talbs. From the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the learned trial Court out of which Issue No,7 relevant for disposal of this revision is reproduced as under:-- ' ISSUE No,7 ' Whether plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of talbs as per law of pre-emption? OP Parties.
3. After evaluating evidence led by the parties and hearing the arguments learned trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 15- 10-2005. Hence, the revision petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record.
5. The main point involved this revision is whether requirement of statutory Talbs has been fulfilled or not. To prove Talbs, the respondent has examined two witnesses, namely, Adnan Ashraf (P.W.2.) and Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.3) and himself has appeared as P. W.1 They all have consistently stated that on 1-11-2003 at 6-00 p.m. Respondent was present in the house of his brother Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.3) where his nephew Adnan Ashraf (P.W.2.) disclosed that petitioner had purchased the disputed land. Respondent there and then announced that he would file suit for pre-emption. Thereafter, respondent obtained copy of sale-deed which revealed that sale had taken place on 1-10-2003. According to the P.Ws., they all went to the Court premises from where they got written a notice and sent the same to the , petitioner through post. Although P.Ws., are consistent on the point that respondent came to know about the impugned sale on 1-11-2003 at 6- 00 p.m. Through Adnan Ashraf (P. W.2) while sitting in the house of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.3), but in cross-examination respondent has stated that he obtained copy of registered sale-deed on 1- 11-2003 at 9-00 a.m. Meaning thereby that prior to information given by P.W.2, respondent had gained knowledge of the impugned sale: Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to reconcile this discrepancy in the statement of respondent during his arguments. It has been held by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in famous judgment of Mian Pir Muhammad and another's case (PLD 2007 SC 302) that it is necessary as soon as pre-emptor acquired knowledge of sale of preempted property, he should make immediate demand for his desire and intention to assert his right of pre-emption without slightest loss of time. It has been further observed that after making Talb-i- Muwathibat, in terms of section 13(2) of Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 pre-emptor had another legal obligation to perform i.e, making of Talb-iIshhad as soon as possible after making Talb-i-Muwathibat not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge of performing Talb-iMuwathibat.
6. In the present case respondent, according to his own statement, must have acquired knowledge of the sale on 1-11-2003 at 9-00 when he received copy of registered sale-deed, but he did not make Talb-iMuwathibat at that point of time. Therefore, requirement of first demand as ,provided by section 13(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 has not been fulfilled. The above discrepancy escaped notice of learned Civil Judge as well as learned Additional District Judge and they have wrongly observed that that requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat has been fulfilled. Since learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of respondent, therefore, both the impugned judgments and decrees are unsustainable in law. Hence, the revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court are set aside and respondent's suit is dismissed for want of necessary Talbs. No orders as to costs.