' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-5-2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2003 passed by Raja Khurram Ali Khan, learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala who dismissed the suit of the petitioner for possession through preemption.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2-9-1998, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondents-defendants on the ground that petitioner-plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption against the defendants over the suit land measuring 13 Kanals which was purchased by the defendants vide mutation No,2583 dated 16-6-1998 for a total consideration of Rs.130,000. It was also alleged that the petitioner-plaintiff came to know about the sale of the land on 25-6-1998 and expressed his intention to exercise his superior right of pre- emption. The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "ISSUES
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirethents of talbs in accordance with law? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff has got a right of pre-emption regarding the suit land? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession through preemption regarding the suit land as has been prayed for in the plaint? OPP
(7) Relief."
3. After recording of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10-1-2003 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to fulfil the talbs as required under the law. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 8-5-2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts below are against the law and facts. He contends that the petitioner-plaintiff has fulfilled the talbs as required under the law. He further contends that since the value of the suit property was Rs.130,000/-, a Civil Judge 1st Class was competent to hear the case but the case was tried and decided by the learned Civil Judge Class-III who had no pecuniary jurisdiction, so the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower Courts are liable to be set aside on this Court alone. He further contends that P.W.2 deposed in his statement that on 25-6-1998, the plaintiff came to know about c the sale of the suit of the suit land but this figure was manipulated later on with 26-2-1998.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the civil revision and has contended that the petitioner-plaintiff failed badly to fulfil the talbs as required under the law as both the talbs, i,e, Talb-I-Ishhad and Talb-iMawathibat, were not fulfilled by him, Further contends that the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge Class-III has no force in the eye of law. He prays that the civil revision be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments put forth by both the parties and have also gone through the record available on file with their able assistance.
7. As regards performance of Talb-iMawathibat, the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are contradictory. P.W.1 Iftikhar Shah in his examination-in-chief states that on 25-6-1998, when he went to the house of Imdad Ali Shah at 4-00 p.m., he came to know about the sale of the suit land who, there and then, announced his intention to file the suit for pre-emption. White P.W.2 Syed Safdar Hussain states that on 26-6-1998, the petitioner-plaintiff performed the Talb-i-Mawathibat.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the date of 26-6-1998 is manipulated but neither any question was D put to P.W.2 during his cross-examination nor such objection was raised before the learned Trial Court by him. So, at this stage, this objection is not entertainable. The other objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that Talb- iIshhad was not performed according to law is mis-conceived, because all the notices of Talb-i- Ishhad were admittedly sent by registered post which were received by the same person and since the notices were admittedly sent on the address mentioned in the mutation of sale, therefore, the presumption will be that the notices were duly served upon the defendants and no benefit could be extended to the respondnets on the plea that the notice Talb-i-Ishhad was not served upon one of the defendants who is resident abroad.
8. So far as the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, this objection was F not raised before the learned trial Court, so it could not be allowed to be raised at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments. In G the circumstances, this civil revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.