' SARDAR SHAUKAT HAYAT, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment and decree dated 14-1-2010 of learned Additional District Judge-X, Peshawar vide which appeal of the respondent was accepted and judgment and decree dated 29-10-2009 of learned Civil Judge-X, Peshawar was set aside.
2. Short but relevant facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through exercise of right of pre-emption in respect of the disputed property measuring 12 marlas house, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, purchased by respondent/ defendant at a sum of Rs,8,00,000 vide registered deed No,1630 attested on 3-4-2007. It was averred in the plaint that the above sale was kept secret until the petitioner / plaintiff got knowledge of the same on 11-6-2007 at 9-00 a.m. And as soon as he got information of the alleged sale, petitioner/plaintiff there and then made immediate demand of Talb-e-Mawathibat and expressed his intention to pre-empt the above sale in presence of Dilbar son of Muzaffar and Hayat Khan son of Olas Khan. One Babar was stated to be informer regarding the alleged sale. Thereafter a registered notice through AD was given to respondent/defendant on the same date i.e. 11-6-2007. It was also alleged that petitioner/plaintiff's property is contiguous to the disputed house, therefore, has superior rights of pre-emption. When the respondent/defendant refused to accept the right of petitioner/plaintiff, instant suit was filed.
3. Respondent/defendant was put on notice who submitted written statement. Issues were framed and pro and contra evidence was recorded. At conclusion of the trial, suit of petitioner/plaintiff was decreed. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree, appeal filed by respondent/defendant was accepted, hence the revision petition in hand.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that findings of the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of facts and law, while learned appellate court has not properly appreciated facts of the case, thus judgment and decree of learned appellate court is against the law, facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Learned counsel for respondent supported the judgment and decree of learned appellate court.
' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before me.
6. Plaintiff appeared before learned trial Court as P.W.3. In his A statement he stated that he was informed regarding the sale of suit property by one Babar and that he in presence of Dilbar and Hayat immediately pronounced his intention to exercise right of pre-emption over the suit property. He thereafter sent a registered notice to respondent through his counsel. In cross-examination, petitioner stated that before making Talb-e-Mawathibat he had filed an application to get the attested copies of the registered sale 'deed which was delivered to him on 26-5-2007 while he applied for the attested copy on 25- 5-2007. The petitioner also admitted that he got information about sale of the suit property four days prior to the application. From such admission, it is clear that the petitioner came to know about sale of the suit property on 21-5-2007 while as per plaint Talb-e-Mawathibat was made on .Information of sale by one Babar on 11-6-2007 at 9-00 a.m., which makes it clear that Talb-e- Mawathibat was not performed by plaintiff when he got knowledge of the sale of suit property on 21-5-2007. It was necessary under section 13 of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 that as soon as plaintiff acquired knowledge of sale of pre-empted property, he should make immediate demand for his intention to assert his right of pre-emption without slightest loss of time. As, admittedly, the petitioner had received information regarding the sale of suit property much prior to the date, which the plaintiff mentioned in his plaint in respect of Talb-e-Mawathibat, such omission is a clear-cut violation of section 13 of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. Reliance is placed on judgments titled Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L. Rs and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) and case titled Mir Sahib Khan v. Muhammad Rauf Khan reported through 1992 SCM R 1780.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that there exists no legal infirmity in the judgment and decree of learned appellate court, hence the revision petition in hand has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.