' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that property in dispute was purchased by respondent through Mutation No, 148 attested on 26-5-1999. This sale was sought to be preempted by the petitioner by way of filing suit for per-emption on 10-9-1999. According to the plaint, the same came to petitioner's knowledge on 18-7-1999. At 3-p.m. When he was present at his tube-well through Sharif Khan P.W. He performed Talb-e-Mawathibat immediately and thereafter on 19-7- 1999 notice for Talb-eIshhad was also sent. The suit was contested by the respondent. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 7-6-2004 dismissed the suit. It was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal which also stands dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3-3-2005. Both these judgments and decrees are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that necessary ingredients and facts required to establish Talbs have been pleaded and have been established on record. Findings of two Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of material pieces of evidence. Submits that P.
W. 2 . / plaintiff has categorically and clearly stated all relevant facts for the establishment of Talb- e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad which has been duly attended by the Courts below.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that impugned sale had taken place and attested on 26-5-1999 whereas through Exh.D2, which is Mutation No,149 also attested on the same day by Arshad and others, sons of the respondent who had alienated by way of sale and land measuring 6 Kanal, 4 Marlas in favour of the present petitioner just after the impugned sale and at the relevant time Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar wife of the petitioner was also present, therefore, it is concluded that impugned sale was in the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff from the very first day. It is also submitted that although P.W.2/plaintiff had stated that material facts about the performance of requisite Talbs but he does not find support from his witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 as they have failed to narrate at the relevant details with regard to performance of Talabs.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Attestation of the two mutations i.e, impugned mutation and Mutation No,149 by way of which sons of the respondent had mutated some pieces of land at the same time and that too in the presence of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar wife of B the petitioner, no inference can be drawn other than that the petitioner had come to know about impugned sale on the same day when it was attested, therefore, his claim of having acquired knowledge on 18-7-1999 cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
6. For what has been stated above, no interference can be made in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. Before parting with the order, it may be observed that petitioners possession was protected subject to deposit of annual mesne profits on annual basis with the learned trial Court. If the said profits have D been deposited, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent and if the same have not been deposited, the learned executing Court may assess the same, which may be recovered through process of execution.