JUDGMENT NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J. - This civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below in a pre-emption suit of the petitioner.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit before Senior Civil Judge Kalurkot, District Bhakkar for possession through exercise of right of pre-emption of land measuring 7 Kanals sold through mutation No. 159, dated 30.11.1995 situated in village Saggo Shumali, Tehsil Kalurkot District Bhakkar. It was contended by the petitioner that he has a superior right of pre- emption and that he came to know of the transaction in question on 3.12.1995 at 4.00 p.m. While he was sitting in his home through one Haq Nawaz son of Ghulam Rasool. The petitioner alleged to have made jumping demand performing Talab-e-Muwathibat and sent a legal notice dated 5.12.1995 to the respondents through registered postal service which was also received by them.
The petitioner contended that he is a co-sharer in the Khata of the subject land therefore has a superior right of pre-emption.
3. This suit was contested by the respondents who denied the superior right of pre-emption of the petitioner as well as. The claim of making Talab-e-Muwathibat by the petitioner, It was further contended that the subject land was purchased hy the respondents for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in addition to that improvements were also made by the respondents over the subject land.
4. The learned Civil Judge out of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- ISSUES:
(1) Whether plaintiff has superior pre-emptive right against the vendee/defendants? OPP
(2) Whether plaintiff has fulfilled the demands of pre-emption? OPP
(3) Whether ostensible sale price Rs. 1 Lac was fixed in good faith and was paid to the vendor? OPD
(4) If issue No. 3 is not proved affirmatively then what was the market price of the disputed property at the time of transaction? OP Parties.
(5) Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD
(6) Whether description of the suit property is incorrect, if so what is the correct description and its effect? OPD
(7) Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his word and conduct? OPD
(8) 'Whether defendant No. 5 is minor and has not been sued properly, if so its effect? OPD
(9) Whether the plaintiff has not made up the deficiency of Court-fee within limitation, if so its effect? OPD
(10) Whether defendants are entitled to recover incidental charges and costs of alleged improvements, if so how much? OPD
(11) Relief.
5. The parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 16:10.2001, dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The making of Talabs was also held to have not-been proved by the Petitioner/plaintiff although on the issue No. 1 about the superior right of pre-emption, the vendees/respondents admitted the petitioner's claim. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 which was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.2003. Hence this civil revision.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that minor discrepancies in a suit for pre- emption are unavoidable and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported judgment Abdul Latif alias' Muhammad Latif v. Pir Mir and others (2010 SCM R 1087) has held that such-like minor discrepancies are natural in the statements of witnesses when the evidence has been recorded after 3V2 years of the taking place of, the event.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the making of Talabs have not been proved by the petitioner which is fatal to the maintainability of the instant suit and that the concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the two Courts. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on its on facts.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is important .To submit that the Petitioner/plaintiff appeared as PW2 and although in examination-in-chief as well as in the plaint, he has" contended that he came to know of the sale in question on 3.12.1995 but in the first four lines of cross-examination he made the following important disclosures and admissions: {{Urdu Text}}
10. This statement of the plaintiff makes the entire claim of the Petitioner/plaintiff about making the Talabs seriously doubtful as claimed in the plaint as well as in the examination-in-chief. Although; the plaintiff claimed in the plaint as well as in his examination-in-chief that he came to know of the transaction on 3.12.1995 and served the notice of Talab-e-Ishad on 5.12.1995 but from the reading of the above-mentioned portion of petitioner's statement the claim of the petitioner stands disproved as he obtained copies of the transaction after 10/12 days of the information received by him of the sale in question and then served the notice through the lawyer, It is also important to note that Ex.P17 is the certified copy of the mutation in question which has been produced by the petitioner himself upon which the date of obtaining the certified copy has been mentioned as 15.1.1996. It is also important that another stamp bearing the date 7.12.1996 is also legible on the document Ex.P17., The notice of Talab-e-Ishad have also omission with respect to the alleged sale price of the transaction in question. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, In the reported judgment Abdul Latif alias Muhammad Latif v. D.1 Mir and others (2010 SCM R 1087), there was only some discrepancy with respect to the time upon which the plaintiff was visited by the witnesses and information of the sale was conveyed to him. The; plaintiff mentioned that one of the witnesses came at 10/11 O'clock whereas the other witness stated that he came at 12 O'clock. The third witness stated that he came at 12/1234 O'clock Such-like discrepancies were declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to be not of material consequence when the evidence was recorded after 3/4 of the happening of the actual event, In the present case, the facts stated by the plaintiff in his cross-examination render his claim of making the Talab as per pleadings completely dismantled in the cross-examination. The date of the certified copies of,Ex.P17 by the Petitioner/plaintiff also contradicts the plaintiffs stand as raised in the plaint as well as in the examination-in-chief, therefore, the learned two Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove the making of Talabs in a convincing manner. I do not find any justification in the revisional jurisdiction to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below. No merit is found in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.