AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this second appeal, judgment and decree dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khanpur, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 24.01.2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Khanpur, whereby suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent, was decreed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Shabbir Ahmad filed a suit on 02.04.1994 to pre- empt a sale through Mutation No. 1022 sanctioned on 16.12.1993 in favour of the defendant- appellant. Written statement was filed. The learned Trial Court on 05.07.1994, framed the issues and on 26.02.1998, framed an additional issue No. 5A. The learned Trial Court invited the parties to produce their evidence. The parties produced their respective evidence to prove the issues. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.01.2001 decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the vendee-defendant was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2001. Hence this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent at the very out set stated that this appeal is not competent as the jurisdictional value of the suit and appeal is Rs. 2,000/- and suit was filed on 24.04.1994.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant stated that this appeal be treated as civil revision.
5. I have examined that all the certified copies of the requisite record which are required to be placed on the file of civil revision, are available, therefore, there is no bar to allow the oral request of learned counsel for the appellant to treat this appeal as revision. Hence, request of learned counsel for the appellant is allowed and present appeal is treated as civil revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that neither the Talbs have been pleaded in accordance with law nor the evidence upto the mark has been produced to prove the Talbs in accordance with Section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. Further states that in plaint no date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale as well as making of Talb-e-Muwathibat has been mentioned, therefore, while relying upon Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L. Rs. And others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302), learned counsel for the petitioner states that suit was not maintainable and both the Courts below fell in error while decreeing the suit absolutely against law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent also conceded advanced the arguments which relate to the interpretation of evidence produced by the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent also conceded this fact that date, time and place of knowledge has not been mentioned in the plaint. I have further observed that receipt of notice was denied and plaintiff-respondent has neither produced the postman nor the acknowledgment due to prove the service of notice of Talb-e-lshhad upon the defendant-petitioner.
9. In this view of the matter, when plaintiff has not pleaded the Talbs in accordance with law and further he has not proved the same, therefore, both the Courts below have erred in law while decreeing the suit and 1st Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
10. For what has been discussed above, I accept this civil revision as the appeal has been treated as such and judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, suit filed by the respondent for preemption shall stand dismissed, with costs throughout.
Civil revision .