' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the plaintiff/petitioner, namely, Muhammad Zahoor, has sought the indulgence of this court to set at naught the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below dated 31-10-2008 and 12-5-2009 respectively, whereby his suit for pre-emption filed against Muhammad Abid Qayyum and two others, defendants/ respondents was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner had sued the respondents for possession through pre-emption in respect of the suit land fully described in the plaint, on the basis of contiguity, immunities and appendages. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendants had actually purchased the suit land for the sale consideration of Rs,3,00,000, but in order to defeat his pre-emptive rights, an inflated and exaggerated amount of Rs,15,00,000 has been mentioned in the suit mutation.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and 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'? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has waived his rights? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is bad for impleadment of minor defendants directly?
(5) Whether the plaintiff has made talbs according to law? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption? OPP
(7) What is the market value of the suit property?
(8) Whether the sale consideration of Rs,1,50,000 was fixed in good faith and actually paid? OPD
(9) Whether the defendants have paid additional charges on alienation of the suit shop? OPP.
(10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP
(11) Relief.
4. After recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of record of the case, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner which was maintained in appeal vide judgments and decrees mentioned above. Hence this revision petition.
5. This is a suit for pre-emption wherein the plaintiff has to prove the observance of talbs in accordance with law. Perusal of the plaint in the case in hand reveals that the plaintiff had got the knowledge about the impugned sale transaction on 5-3-1999 at Al-Mazhar House from one Imam Ahmad at 0700 p.m. And he immediately expressed his intention to pre-empt the same by exercise of his right of pre-emption, i,e, talb-ernuwathibat. Subsequently, he prepared the notice of talb-e- ishhad duly signed by two witnesses and dispatched the same on 10-3-1999 to the defendants but they were admantly reluctant to accept his paramount claim, thus he filed the present suit by observing talb-e-khasumat. In support of his claim, the plaintiff appeared as P. W.5 and reiterated his stance as contained in the plaint. However, the two witnesses of the plaintiff, namely, Zard Ali Khan and Irnam Ahmad appeared as P. Ws. 6 and 7 respectively have not supported the narration of the plaintiff in toto, rather have contradicted him on material particulars. So the appraisal of evidence discussed above leads me to hold that the impugned findings of the learned lowers courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are well-founded. The learned courts below have neither exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, nor failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it under the law, nor have committed any illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence so as to warrant interference therein by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Thus after ,hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that both the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence of the parties while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity, illegality, misreading or non- reading of material evidence therein which are accordingly upheld.
5(sic.) Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of the two courts below being based on facts cannot be set at naught by the revisional court unless it is proved through the evidence available on record that the same are either perverse, fanciful, erroneous or based on mis-reading and non- reading of evidence in view of. The dicta handed down by the honourable apex court in the case- law reported as 2002 SCM R 1114 and 2007 SCM R 368.
6. Resultantly, this revision petition being bereft of any meritable consideration is hereby dismissed.
Cost shall follow the events.