' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- As per the averments made in the plaint, the petitioner-defendant purchased the suit property by way of an oral sale for a consideration of Rs,1,65.000 through Mutation No,359, sanctioned on 23-9-1999. On 20-12-1999, when the respondent-plaintiff was present in his 'baithak', at 0900 hours, Ghulam Shabbir (P.W.2) came there and informed him about the sale. The respondent-plaintiff expressed his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption. On the next day, the petitioner was asked to hand over the suit-land to the respondent after receiving the consideration but he refused. The respondent sent a notice for 'Talb-e-Ishhad' on 30-12-1999 and thereafter filed the instant suit. He claimed being a Shafi Sharik and Shafi Khaleet. The suit was contested by the present petitioner. In the written statement, it was stated that the respondent had the knowledge of the sale, therefore, was estopped to file the suit and the 'Talbs' had not been performed in accordance with law and that the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption. After the issues having been framed, the parties led evidence. The learned trial Court decided Issue No,1 regarding the estoppel and Issue No,2 regarding the cause of action against the petitioner- defendant. Issue No,3 regarding the incidental charges was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No,4 regarding the making of the 'Talbs' was decided against the respondent-plaintiff. Issue No,5 regarding the right of pre-emption was decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was dismissed, vide decree dated 26-10-2004. The appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted and his suit was decreed by the learned District Judge, Attack, vide judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the learned appellate court on Issue No,4 are contrary to the record and offensive to the law; that the learned appellate court has misread the evidence. It is argued that the statements made by the respondent-plaintiff (P.W.1), Ghulam Shabbir (P.W.2) and. Bashir Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) lack the veracity and cannot be relied upon. P.W.1 stated that he did not remember whether 20-12-1999, the day when he received the information about the sale, fell in the holy month of Ramzan or not P.Ws.2 and 3 stated in their cross-examinations that they had taken tea and lunch in the midday on 20-12-1999. They further stated that they keep fast in the month of Ramzan and that on the said day according to P.W.2 it was not the month of Ramzan. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the plaintiff- respondent, who appeared as P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that his 'Dera' was vicinal to the suit-land; that after taking the possession, the petitioner-defendant had sown the mustard crop there and that on 21-12-1999, when the respondent along with the witnesses visited the petitioner, the mustard crop bore broad and big leaves. The learned counsel argues that a considerable time of almost three months had passed between the day when the petitioner got the possession o4 the suit-land and 20-12-1999, when the respondent made Talb-e-Muwathibat and 21-12-1999 when he visited the petitioner and demanded delivery of the suit-land to him. It is argued that the petitioner having a 'Dera' vicinal to the suit-land had immediate knowledge of the sale but he failed to make Talb-eMuwathibat promptly and Talb-e-Ishhad within two weeks from the date of knowledge in accordance with law, as laid down in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argues that minor clerical discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses recorded after elapse of a considerable time, could not be allowed to eclipse the case of a party. He places reliance on 2009 SCMR 240 titled Muhammad Tariq and 4 others v. Asif Javed and another and PLD 2003 Pesh. 179 titled Yar Muhammad Khan v.
Bashir Ahmed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The sale took place on 23-9-1999. Mutation No, 359 was sanctioned on that day. Talb-e-Ishhad was made on 20-12-1999, after elapse of almost three months when the respondent allegedly had information regarding the sale. He visited the petitioner on 21-12-1999 and demanded the return of the property after receiving the sale consideration from him. Talb-e-Ishhad was made on 30-12- 1999. The memory of those engaged in agriculture regarding the events especially relating to the sale and purchase of the agricultural land is always photographic. The respondent appearing as respondent No,1 admitted that he kept the fast but did not remember if the day when he visited the petitioner fell in the holy month of Ramzan or not. P.Ws.2 and 3 also claimed to keep fast usually but admitted that on 21-12-1999 when they visited the petitioner they had been feasting during the fasting houRs, The question is not whether the witnesses who omit to keep fast are truthful by their nature and character or not. The fact is that the witnesses have concocted a story and have told a lie regarding the receipt of the information of sale, making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, visiting the petitioner to demand handing over the property and regarding the making of Talbe-Ishhad. This is not a case of the shortness of memory whether the crucial dates fell in the month of Ramzan or not. They have specifically narrated the manner of feasting on the relevant date. The learned trial Court has taken the judicial notice of the occurrence of the relevant dates in the month of Ramzan.
The whole stance of the respondent-plaintiff stands falsified. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent render him no support. The statements do not suffer from minor discrepancies, they are rich with falsehood. The statements made by the P.Ws. Cannot he relied upon. P.W.2 in his statement made during the cross-examjnation admitted that his 'Dera' was vicinal to the suit-land. Even if, he was inhabiting at a distance, the news regarding the sale in question would have immediately travelled and reached the respondent-plaintiff. This is how it happens in the rural societies through the whispering corridoRs, The respondent admits that when he visited the petitioner on 21-12-1999, the mustard crop sown by the latter after getting the possession bore big leaves. The mustard crop is sown in the months of late October or early November and takes months between sowing, germinating, making a seedling and growing into a plant that bears big leaves. In my view, Talb-e-Muwathibat was not made promptly after receiving the information regarding the sale and Talb-e-Ishhad was not made within two weeks' time, as is provided under the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. Since making of 'Talbs' in accordance with law is a sine qua, non for succeeding in a suit for possession on the basis of preemption, having failed to do it, the respondent was not entitled to the impugned decree. The impugned decree dated 20-7- 2005, passed by the I learned District Judge, Attock is set aside. The judgment and decree l dated 26-10-2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Fateh Jang is upheld. The suit of the respondent stands dismissed. The revision petition succeeds.