' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- This judgment shall also dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.321, 322, 323, 324 and 325 of 2010, because common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Facts of the cases are that the plaintiff/pelitioner Samander Khan had filed six pre-emption Suits Nos.144/1, 145/1, 146/1, 148/1, 149/1 and 150/1 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Lakki Marwat against the defendants named therein for possession through pre-emption on the basis of superior right of pre-emption in respect of the landed property fully detailed in the plaints.
3. The suits were contested by the defendants who filed written statements.
4. The divergent pleadings of the parties gave birth to the framing of the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the defendant(s) was/were in the possession of the land in dispute prior to the mutation in dispute and he/they has/have made construction over it?
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption?
(6) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
(7) Whether the sale consideration was entered less than the market value for avoiding the Government taxes; if so, its effects?
(8) What is the market value?
(9). Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption?
(10) Whether the plaintiffs suit is bad for non-affixation of court-fee?
(11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(12) Relief.
5. The learned trial Judge after recording evidence of the parties and hearing pro and contra arguments in the light of record, dismissed all the suits vide judgments and decrees dated 27-5- 2009.
6. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the plaintiff went in appeals to the appellate Court but in vain as the same were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Lakki Marwat vide judgments and decrees dated 26-4-2010.
7. Still not contented from the concurrent findings based on facts recorded by the two Courts below, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed these revision petitions.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record of the cases.
9. In these cases, discussion over Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-eIshhad is necessary for certain facts pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. As far as Talb-e-Muwathibat is concerned, the stand of the petitioner is that he has made the same in accordance with law and the learned Courts below have erred in appraisal of evidence in this regard.
11. The plaints disclose that the plaintiff/petitioner has made Talbe-Muwathibat in the Patwarkhana Lakki Marwat in the presence of witnesses on 3-9-2003 at about 10-00 a.m.
12. The plaintiff is required to mention date, time and place in the IB plaints which he has done.
Similarly, he is required to mention the same in his evidence before the trial Court.
13. The plaintiff/petitioner has appeared as P.W.3 in the trial Court and deposed that on 3-9-2003 at about 10.00 a.m. He in the company of C Arab Khan has made Talb-e-Muwathibat. Here he has failed to point out the place where he made the said demand.
14. The mentioning of date, time and place in the plaint as well as in the evidence are necessary and if one of them is missing, Talb-e- Muwathibat would be incomplete.
15. Similar is the statement of Arab Khan P.W.4 in whose presence IE Talb-e-Muwathibat was made by the plaintiff/petitioner. He has also failed to point out the place where the Talb was made.
16. Moreover, P.W.4 in cross-examination has admitted that he does not remember that how many times the plaintiff/pre-emptor made Talb-eMuwathibat. It is relevant because these suits have been filed against several sale mutations. According to law, he was required to make F demand, i.e. Talb-e-Muwathibat in respect of each of the mutations. There is nothing on file or in evidence specially in the statement of P.W.4 that as to how many times the demands were made. So this has also made the first demand doubtful.
17. In my opinion, both the Courts below have correctly reached to the conclusion in respect of the first demand.
18. Coming to the second demand, i.e. Talb-e-lshhad, reference may be given to the written statement filed by the defendant/vendee. In para-2 of the written statement, he has denied the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. In the event of denial of notice, the burden shifts to the pre-emptor to prove that the notice was served. Though copy of notices in respect of post office and AD Card have been annexed with the plaints but the plaintiff/pre-emptor has failed to produce the Postman to prove that the notices were duly served. In the recent judgment reported as Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Rasool 2010 SCJ 643 the apex Court has held that Talb-e-Ishhad would not be proved when it is not established that the notice of the said Talb was received by, the vendee. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "It is true that the respondent through production of witnesses amply proved that notice of Talb-e- Ishhad was sent to the petitioner, but it is equally true that it was not proved on record that in fact the same was served upon the former, inasmuch as it was not brought on record that he refused to accept/receive the notice. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the respondent to have at least produced the Postman, through whom notice was allegedly got served upon the petitioner, to prove that notice was actually sent to him at the right address and he received or refused to receive the said notice".
19. Keeping in view the judgment of the apex Court referred above, I am firm in my view that the plaintiff/pre-emptor has failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhad.
20. As discussed above, since both the Talbs have not been performed in accordance with law by the petitioner, therefore, his suits were rightly dismissed by both the Courts below through their impugned judgments and decrees.
21. The concurrent finding of the learned two Courts impugned herein cannot be set at naught by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Unless it is established that the same are perverse or erroneous in view of the dicta handed down by the apex Court in the cases reported as Abdur Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others 2000 SCM R 346, Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad v.
Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.
22. Consequently, I find no substance in either of the revision petitions which are hereby dismissed in limine.