' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this civil revision under section 115, C.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Ishaq son of Munshi Khan, calls in question the judgments and decrees dated 10-11- 2008 and 11-8-2009, respectively passed by Civil Judge, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, and Additional District Judge, Sahiwal. Through the former judgment dated 10-11-2008 the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the petitioner filed for possession of the land in dispute through pre- emption, whereas through the latter judgment and decree dated 11-8-2009, appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dated 10-11-2008 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this Civil Revision are that land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas, situated in Khewit No,280, Khatuni No,870, Khasra No,26/15, 2/2, in Chak No,95/12-L, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal was jointly owned by Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ishaq sons of Munshi Khan, and Muhammad Aslam as well as Muhammad Akram son of Mushtaq Ahmad.
Muhammad Iqbal Khan sold his share of 1 Kanal and 1 Marla to respondents Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Amin son of Faqir Muhammad vide mutation No,1985 dated 26-3-1999. The petitioner- plaintiff Muhammad Ishaq son of Munshi Khan, being Shafi Shareek, Shafi Khaleet and Shafi Jar, brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in the civil Court on 29-5-1999 relating to the said sold land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla alleging that the same had been sold secretly vide the above mutation to the said respondents Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Amin. It is alleged in the plaint of the suit that the actual sale price of the disputed property was fixed as Rs,25,000 wherein amount of mortgage was also included, but to defeat the right of preemption of the plaintiff- petitioner ostensible sale price of Rs,26000 was shown; that the defendants-respondents or the vendor did not give any notice to the respondent-plaintiff regarding the sale. The defendants- respondents filed written statement, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court, evidence of the parties was recorded. Plaintiff-petitioner produced five witnesses as well as documentary evidence Exh.P.6 to Exh.P.9. On behalf of the defendants-respondents DWs.1 and 2, namely, Muhammad Tufail and Manzoor Ahmad (defendant) were produced. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner vide judgment and-decree dated 10-11-2008.
3. The learned trial Court decided pivotal issue No,5 regarding performance of Talbs against the petitioner-plaintiff observed as under:-- "The plaintiff while appearing as P.W.1 stated that the mutation was got executed quarter to five years prior. Muhammad Sharif P.W.2 stated that the plaintiff P. W.1 came to know regarding the mutation 4/5/6 days after passing the mutation and the same came in knowledge of the plaintiff five years or quarter to five years prior. He admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff came to know regarding the mutation after 5/7 days of passing of same whereas the date of passing the mutation is admittedly 23-3-1999. Hanif Khan stated that the plaintiff came to know regarding the mutation of the suit property quarter of five years prior. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 P.W.3 was recorded on 20-3-2004 whereas the date of knowledge of mutation has been given as 14-5-1999 in the plaint. There are serious contradictions regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat and no P.W.
Has narrated that it was 14-5 1999 when the plaintiff got knowledge of the sale of the suit property.
' The plaintiff stated in his plaint that he along with others went to the defendants to make Talb- eIshhad after four days by 14-5-1999 and then he went to Sahiwal for posting the notice under registered cover A.D. P.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that he did not know that how much notices were prepared. He also has no knowledge that he signed how much notices. He admitted that he did not send separate notices to the defendants. P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not affix thumb impression except on one page. He also stated that Hanif Khan P.W.3 also did not sign on any other paper except one. P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief stated that they went to the defendants next day from knowledge of the mutation. He stated that the original one was posted in the post office and the notice Exh.P/1 is not the original one. He also admitted that he signed only one page. Exh.P.4. And Exh.P.5. Are the receipts of registered cover produced by the plaintiff. Exh.P/1 is the original notice and Exh.P.7 is also original notice. P.W.1 do not know that how much notices were prepared whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 stated that they affixed thumb impressions and signed only on one page. Both the notices Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.7 carry original signatures and original thumb impressions. If only one notice was made and the same was posted to the defendants from where Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.7 came. There is no corroboration in the statements of all the three P. Ws.
And in this way the Talb-iIshhad also could not be proved by the plaintiff."
' The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff argued that both the Courts below wrongly dismissed the suit and appeal of the petitioner. The plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the performance of necessary demands, i.e, Talb-e-Muathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. Further submits that to prove the Talbs witnesses were produced who had signed the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. He prayed that the findings of the learned trial Court as well as of the learned lower appellate Court on issue No,5 relating to fulfillment of Talbs was wrongly decided against the plaintiff-petitioner, so the judgments of both the Courts below are based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence, and they should be set aside and pre-emption suit of the plaintiff-petitioner should be accepted.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel badly failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the two Courts below, which are based on best appraisal of evidence. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below with regard to the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. I have gone through the contents of the plaint. In para-5 of the same exact time of performance of Talb-eMuwathibat, which is basic ingredient to prove the performance of Talb-eMuwathibat, date of issue of notice and performance of Talb-e-Ishhad in terms of section 13 of the Pre-emption Act is not proved. Reliance is placed on the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L. Rs, and others PLD A 2007 SC 302. Finding of the learned trial Court rightly was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge.
6. When there are concurrent findings with regard to facts and law, unless there is jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the two Courts below, the High Court cannot interfere in the said concurrent findings in exercise of power under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on the cases reported in 2007 SCM R 926(a), 2007 SCM R 870(e), PLD 2005 SC 418 and 2003 SCM R 83. There is no jurisdictional defect in the orders of both the Courts below. The findings of both the Courts below are based on cogent reasons. There is also no illegality or irregularity in the said judgments.
7. For the reasons discussed above, I find no force in the civil revision, which is dismissed in limine.