1. ORDER MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. - The cause of pre-emotion propounded by the petitioner against the respondent has failed at both the forums below on the issue of Talabs; respective judgments and decrees of the Courts below are dated 17.5.2008 and 29.8.2009. It has been categorically found by the two Courts that though in the plaint the petitioner claims that he had learnt about the sale Mutation dated 16.5.2003 on 28.7.2003 and thereafter served upon the vendee with a notice of Talb- i-Ishhad on 30.7.2003, but while appearing as a witness, he himself has stated that:- [( URDU TEXT )] It is further stated in his cross-examination that:- [( URDU TEXT )] PW-2 Abdul Majeed, who is stated to have informed the petitioner about the sale, in his examination-in-C.I.F has not given the exact date, time and the venue where the information was passed on to the petitioner and he allegedly made Talb-i-Muwathibat. However, in the cross- examination it is stated by him that:- [( URDU TEXT )] This is a clear contradiction between the two statements. Moreover, PW-3 who is another witness of the petitioner states in the cross-examination that:- [( URDU TEXT )] Obviously, on account of such poor quality of evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove Talb-i- Muwathibat in the above context, taking his statement that he learnt about the sale after one month of the mutation, which is dated 16.5.2003. The notice of Talb-i-Ishhad dated 30.7.2003 was also not sent within 15 days as required under the law, therefore, the second Talab is also not validly made.
2. In the light of above, I do not find any error in the concurrent finding Of facts recorded by the two Courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction' Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.