The respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption , qua the disputed land, the petitioner filed written statement, of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, they were put to trial and thereafter the suit decreed Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal, the same was dismissed hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Talabs as ordained under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 were not performed in accordance with law, especially date of notice of Talab-e-Muathibat was not mentioned in the pleadings and therefore, the same is fatal to the cause of the respondent, as the time, date, place and notice of Talab-e-Muathibat is required to be incorporated in the plaint with other requirements. To fortify his contentions, the learned counsel referred to Mst. Bashiran Begum vs. Nazar Hussain and another (PLD 2008 SC 559).
To further advance his arguments the learned counsel stated that the impugned judgment is also full of errors of fact as DW-2 has been referred to as PW3, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record and this alone vitiates the entire proceedings. Reference Sardar Muhammad Nawaz us. Mst. Firdous Begum (2008 SCM R 404).
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, which are sacrosanct with the pleadings of the plaintiff and the witnesses produced and the documentary evidence tendered, therefore, the petition is not competent.
4. Heard.
5. The controversy in hand has been addressed by the learned trial Court by framing six issues, the plaintiff/respondent produced PW1 to PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 and also produced Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, the petitioner also produced DW1 and Ex. D1 and Ex. D2 only. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid much emphasis on the deposition of Atta Muhammad as DW2 mentioned in the impugned judgment as PW-3, it also is worthwhile to mention here that no one appeared as DW2, as Ghulam Hussain himself appeared as a solitary witnesses for the defendant as DW1 As far as the error is concerned, it is merely typographical as the impugned judgment has taken stock of the entire deposition made by the witnesses but mis-describing him, this omission has not impeded the deposition of the witnesses produced, as it was apprised and deciphered on its own strength and weakness, alongwith other witnesses. In the present matter, the record and depositions made clearly reflect that the plaint fulfils the procedural requirements of time, date, place and date of dispatch of notice, they have been clearly mentioned. The contradictions referred to in respect of plaintiff's witnesses qua time are very minor and of no consequence, because they are in conformity with overall the time frame mentioned in the plaint. The lower appellate Court and the trial- Court, both appraised concurrently the material produced by the rival contestants, I also have perused the evidence produced by the plaintiff, it is clear, unambiguous and fully corroborates the contents of the plaint, thus the plaintiff has adequately discharged onus and established performance of talabs, as ordained by law and enunciated in Section 13 of Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991. Even otherwise; there are concurrent findings of facts on all material issues by the learned trial Court and the lower appellate Court no grave misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out, the discrepancy referred to is mere typographical and that too, is also not the corner stone or edifice of the impugned judgment, there is no material illegality or irregularity, the precedents referred to by the learned counsel have no bearing upon the proceedings, therefore, this petition has no merits and is dismissed.