Through this civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 13.10.2004 and 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian and the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.1999, the respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge in respect of the suit land. The suit was contested and after framing of issues, both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. On 13.10.2004, the learned trial Court, Kharian decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian on 30.11.2005; hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments and decrees dated 13.10.2004 and 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian and learned Additional District Judge, Kharian respectively are against the law and facts as these suffer from material irregularities and illegalities. According to petitioner's counsel, the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove Talb-iMuwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. Learned counsel further contends that the sale in question took place on 10.07.1998, mutation of sale was entered on 10.07.1998 and the possession was also delivered, which facts are evident from Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati.
4. Learned counsel further contends that instead of original notice, only photocopy thereof was placed on record, which being impermissible under the law was objected to but the learned trial Court had failed to take into the account the objection while deciding the matter. According to him, such practice is not permissible under the law. Further contends that the right of pre-emption without strong evidence in support thereof has been termed as very weak by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon PLD 2003 SC 410. 2005 SCM R 1231 and 58 Indian Cases 247.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent controverts the maintainability of this civil revision and prays that this civil revision be dismissed because there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. Further contends that the plaintiff/respondent has fulfilled the requirements of Talabs as provided under the law. Notice Talb-i-Ishhad was served upon the petitioner as required under the law and after the document is exhibited, no objection is maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the plaintiff produced five PWs including himself in support of his case and also produced Exh. P-1 to P-7 as documentary evidence in support of his version.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that photo-copies prepared mechanically could be exhibited under Article 177 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Learned counsel in support of her contentions has relied upon 2003 M LD 1666. PLD 2003 SCM R 410, 2008 SCM R 1444. 2008 SCM R 1366.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and carefully perused the record available on file.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put more stress on the point that original notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was not placed/exhibited and photo-copy was not admissible in evidence. An objection in this regard was raised before the learned trial Court during the course of evidence with regard to the photocopy of notice but the learned trial Court failed to dispose of objection there and then and postponed the same at the time of final arguments which was not properly adjudicated at the time of final arguments, so, presumption will be that Talabs were not fulfilled as required under the law.
9. The above preposition is misconceived because in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Hameed Ullah Khan and others vs. Mst. Zeenat Khan reported as 2008 S.C.M.R. 1444. The contention of petitioner that Talb-i-Ishhad was not duly performed as photocopy of notice was exhibited is of no legal consequence because the original notice is sent to the defendant and photocopy of notice Talb-i-Ishhad is admissible particularly when plaintiff also submit in evidence the postal receipt and the acknowledge due issued by the post office. There is also concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below which could not be interfered. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material discrepancy or illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no interference is called for. Civil revision is dismissed.