' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the wires of judgment and decree dated 19- 7-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehjang, whereby an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-2009 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Fatehjang was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, as emerge on perusal of the record are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through preemption in respect of land measuring 48 Kanals, fully described in the head-note of the plaint on payment of a sum of Rs,48,00,000 or the price fixed by the court. It is contended that the disputed land was owned by Mehboob Elahi son of Sammundar, who alienated it in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs,48,00,000 but an exaggerated price of Rs,72,00,000 was entered in the sale-deed; that the transaction was finalized secretly and no notice was given through affixation or beat of drum in the village and that he attained knowledge on 1-3-2005 at about 9-00 a.m. While sitting in his 'Baithak' through Tahir Sharif Butt and made a pronouncement in presence of Umar Hayat then and there that he had superior right of pre-emption being co- sharer and owner of contiguous land so would enforce the same and thereafter on 2-3-2005 at about 10-00 a.m. He got the notice drafted from his counsel and sent it through registered post to the respondent. It is contended that he being a co-sharer and owner of the adjacent land has superior right of pre-emption.
3. The defendant/respondent contested the suit on legal and factual grounds. It was specifically contended that the Talbs were not made according to law and that the petitioner has no right of pre-emption. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also met the same fate. Both the courts below have held that making of Talb-e-Ishhad was not proved.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner could have not been non-suited on technicalities and both the courts below failed to bring under consideration the postal receipt (Exh.P.2), which clearly shows that the notice was sent on the correct address through registered post A.D.; that after issuance of the notice through registered post, the petitioner/ plaintiff was not required to prove anything else and it was for the defendant/respondent to disprove his contention regarding service of notice and that the defendant/respondent has not categorically denied the making of. Talb-e-Ishhad and receipt of notice so the contention of the petitioner stood admitted. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2. Others (2000 SCMR 329), Hayat Muhammad and others v. Mazhar Hussain (2006 SCMR 1410), Ghulam Abbas and another v.
Manzoor Ahmad and another (2008 SCMR 1366), Muhammad Tariq and 4 others v. Asif Javed and another (2009 SCMR 240), Humayun Naseer Cheema and 3 others v. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar and others (2007 CLC 819), Wali Khan v. Noor Ahmad and another (2006 CLC 1715) and Ghulam Abbas v. Manzoor Ahmed and another (PLD 2004 Lahore 125).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; that the A.D. Receipt has not been produced to show that, in fact, the registered cover envelope reached the destination; that it is not stated in the copy of notice (Exh.P.1) that it was being sent through registered cover envelope A.D.; that no postal employee was produced in spite of specific denial of the receipt of notice or issuance of the same through registered cover envelope A.D.; .That even the author of the notice and the person, who issued the receipt were not produced to prove that, in fact, the notice was sent through registered cover envelope A.D. And that in view of the above facts, the learned trial Court and learned 1st appellate court rightly concluded that the service of notice is not proved. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Munawar Hussain v. Sultan Ahmad and another (2008 SCMR 34) and Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762).
6. No A.D. Receipt has been produced. Had the notice been sent through registered post A.D. As required under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the A.D. Receipt would have been received back and in case of non-receipt or-refusal to receive the same the envelope would have been received by the petitioner with an endorsement to this effect. Only on one of the eventualities, a presumption would have arisen to the effect that the notice containing Talb-e-Ishhad was duly served. The contention that the petitioner has not specifically denied the receipt of the notice or making of Talb-e-Ishhad is against the record as in preliminary objection No,3, the defendant/ respondent has categorically denied the making of Talb-e-Ishhad. As against this, the petitioner neither in the plaint nor through endorsement on the notice has contended that it was sent through registered cover envelope A.D. After denial of the respondent/defendant it was necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove that he had, in fact, sent the notice through registered cover envelope A.D. Or the same was, in fact, served upon the respondent. This could have been proved by production of the A.D. Receipt or envelope with endorsement of the postal employee, if received on refusal or through production of the Postman, who had delivered the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the receipt (Exh.P.2) clearly shows that the notice was sent through registered A.D. And as such both the courts below have erred due to misreading of evidence. There is no doubt that the alphabets 'A.D.' appear on this receipt but the person, who issued it has not entered the witness box to prove that, in fact, alphabets 'A.D.' were written and that the notice was actually sent through registered cover envelope A.D. A pre emptor is required to send the notice containing Talb-e-Ishhad through registered C cover envelope A.D. And prove this fact through reliable evidence as mentioned above and in case the receipt of the notice is refused by the defendant then he may substantiate his contention by production of the A.D. Receipt issued by the Postal Department, the envelope bearing endorsement of the postal employee, after return due to refusal to accept the same or by examination of the Postman. In the instant case, the petitioner did not adopt any one of the above mentioned modes to prove his contention. The learned trial Court and the learned ADJ rightly held that he had, failed to prove his contention. In these circumstances, the concurrent findings of the two courts of competent jurisdiction do not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In this respect reliance is placed on 2008 SCMR 34 and 2011 SCMR 762. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the peculiar circumstances of this case.
7. For the reasons supra, the revision petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.