' MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.---This is a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against the judgment and order dated 13-5-2004 of learned District Judge, Mansehra, whereby judgment/decree of learned Civil Judge-I, Balakot dated 25-10-2003 was maintained and appeal dismissed.
2. Mst. Chand Sanoober petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding property fully described in the heading of plaint against respondents on the basis of co-sharership and contiguity. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement and learned Civil Judge-I, Balakot after recording evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal which also met the same fate vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that petitioner is not only co-sharer in the suit property but also contiguous owner to the suit property. He further contended that petitioner on gaining knowledge about sale transaction performed the requisite talabs in accordance with law.
He also argued that judgments and decrees of learned courts below being based on misreading and non-reading of material evidence available on record and misinterpretation of law on the subject are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner be granted decree as prayed for. Reliance was placed on 2005 CLC 1415, PLD 2003 Peshawar 179, PLD 2002 Peshawar 109 and PLD 2010 Peshawar 73.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent opposed the contentions so raised by petitioner and supported the impugned judgments. Learned counsel has contended that failure of pre-emptor to appear personally and to depose about Talb-i-Muwathibat was a circumstance that seriously affect the credibility and bona fide of preemptor. Reliance was placed on 2007 SCMR 957, 2005 CLC 325 and 1995 CLC 1077.
5. Petitioner has mentioned in her plaint as well as notices of Talb- i-Ishhad that on 8-3-1996 she had come from Islamabad to the house of her deceased uncle Sultan Muhammad Khan, situated in Shohal Najaf Khan. Muhammad Naseem Khan (P.W.5) has stated that the plaintiff along with her husband had come to their house two days prior to 8-3-1996 and that he and his brother Muhammad Salim were aware of the suit transaction. Muhammad Liaquat (P.W.4) stated that he informed the plaintiff about the suit transaction, on that the plaintiff made Talb-iMuwathibat. He in cross-examination also stated that he had told the plaintiff that the landed property has been purchased by Sain Muhammad and the plaintiff had made Talb-i-Muwathibat against said Sain Muhammad. The plaintiff has stated in her plaint and notice Talb-iIshhad that she has made Talb- i-Muiwathibat in the house of her uncle Sultan Muhammad Khan. The plaintiff has not appeared herself in support of her plaint as well as performances of Talb-i-Muwatibat and Talb-i-Ishhad but was represented by her special attorney P.W.6. The effect of her non-appearance in person and other relevant questions would be judged on the touch stone of judicial pronouncements cited by the parties.
6. In the case of FazIur Rehman v. Mst. Zavedi Jan alias Zureda Jan reported in 2005 CLC 1415, it was held that minor discrepancies in statements of witnesses of Talbs recorded after more than four years of sale. Such discrepancies could not be made ground for dismissing suit on ground of talbs.
Likewise, in the case of Yar Muhammad Khan v. Bashir Ahmed (PLD 2003 Peshawar 179), his lordship Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad, J. Held that judicial wisdom preferred to ignore minor and insignificant discrepancies in statements of witnesses more particularly when they were examined after a long time. Only glaring omissions, contradictions and dishonest improvements introduced in evidence of witness would render the same unreliable.
7. In the case of Muhammad Younas v. Mst. Mehr Afzoon (PLD 2002 Peshawar 109), it was held that the law permits a litigant to be represented through the appointed authority. In the case of Muhammad Karim and others v. Zuijalal and another (PLD 2010 Peshawar 73) it was held that under section 14 of the Act, where a person is unable to make demands under section 13, his guardian or agent may make the required demand on his behalf. It is gathered from record that pre-emptor was stated to be 100 years old, who appointed his son namely Said Nazar as a special attorney.
8. In the case of Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq reported in 2007 SCMR 957 their lordship of Supreme Court observed in the following words:-- "Right of pre-emption being a piratical right, pre-emptor could not maintain suit without proving Talb-i-Muwathibat as it was a foundation for exercise of right of pre-emption. The pre-emptor, who despite being available did not appear in witness box. The pre-emptor, no doubt, could appoint an attorney to pursue the suit but Talb-i-Muwathibat being a personal act of the preemptor, is required to be proved by him through his own statement and attorney may not be substitute of the pre-emptor under the law, therefore, notwithstanding the provision of section 14 of Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 according to which if a person is unable to make demand under section 13 (ibid) his agent may make such demand on his behalf but the petitioner cannot get benefit of this exception firstly for the reason that he has claimed performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in person and secondly this exception appears to have been created to meet a situation in which either the pre-emptor is minor or is invalid or is not in a position in the ordinary circumstances to make Talb- iMuwathibat himself and appear in court in person".
10. In the cases of Amir Badshah v. Amin ul Haq and 4 others (2005 CLC 325) and Falak Omar Khan and another v. Mir Qalam Khan (1995 CLC 1077) more or less the same view has been expressed in the following words:- "As Talb-i-Muwathibat was purely an act of personal nature, which could only be described amicably by the party itself and not by the person holding power of attorney on his behalf".
There is no cavil to the proposition that minor discrepancies in IB statements of Talb-i-Muwathibat are to be ignored but following the I dictum laid down in the above mentioned cases and in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, both the courts below have rightly turned down the plaint and appeal of petitioner.
11. In the wake of what has been discussed above, it is held that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts below are unexceptionable and would, therefore, not call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
12. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.