' ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J.---The petitioner/plaintiff has called in question judgments and decrees dated 1-10-2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhalwal and dated 3-10-2011 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-III, Bhalwa1. Respectively concurrently -dismfssing the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner regarding the suit property mentioned in the headnote of the plaint which was in the ownership of Muhammad Gulzar and sold to the defendants against the consideration of Rs,1,50,000 but inflated amount of Rs,2,00,000 was mentioned in the sale-deed on the grounds of land adjacent to the petitioner's property and common source of irrigation and passage.
2. Compendious facts forming background of the instant revision petition have duly been noted in the appellate judgment and decree and therefore need not be reproduced extensively.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are material discrepancies available in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below; that the learned -courts below passed the impugned judgments and decrees with material illegalities and irregularities which are apparently available on the record. Further submits that although there are minor discrepancies in evidence adduced by the petitioner/plaintiff but the observations made by both the courts below are arbitrary, fanciful and result of misreading and non-reading of evidence resulting into passing of the said judgments. Further contends that the petitioner/plaintiff successfully proved his case before the Trial Court but wrong assumptions were taken while deciding the suit of the petitioner. He argued with vehemence that the evidence tendered by the petitioner/plaintiff is very strong and reliable. Both the courts below wrongly decided that no jumping demand was made by the petitioner in the first meeting when the sale of disputed land came into his knowledge.
4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard at length and record perused with his assistance.
5. It is admitted proposition of law that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is purely meant for correction of jurisdictional errors and material illegalities/irregularities and in absence thereof the concurrent findings of the courts below cannot be interfered with in a routine mode unless shown to be arbitrary, despotic, fanciful or result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The concurrent findings were not open to challenge on the sole ground that some other inference could be drawn in the matter. Steering thoughts can be taken from the case of Maulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangish and another 2010 SCMR 817 and Riaz Muhammad and another v. Khadim Muhammad and 2 others (PLD 2014 Pesh 21). It was specifically observed by both the courts below that the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat as contemplated under section 13(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 was not proved by any convincing and credible evidence adduced by the petitioner/plaintiff. If would be convenient to reproduce here the relevant portion of statement of petitioner/plaintiff:{{URDU TEXT}} ' The above portion of statement shows that the petitioner/plaintiff while appearing as P.W.1 in cross-examination maintained that when his father told him about the sale of the land, they remained busy in talking for half an hour and then he went to house and pronounced his right of pre-emption. It is very much established principle of law as contemplated under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 that Talb-iMuwathibat means immediate demand (jumping demand) by pre-emptor in the same sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know about the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. The word "immediate" has been interpreted in Black's Law Dictionary as "occurring without delay or instant". Now, if the pre-emptor did not disclose his intention to exercise his pre-emptive right in the same meeting, he would be driven out as having not fulfilled the requirement of immediate demand as mentioned in the said section because the pre-emptor had to act forthwith and not wait for a moment and without slightest loss of time while making immediate demand after attaining knowledge of the sale to which he wished to pre-empt as held in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v.
Faqir Muhammad through LR's and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) and Rana Muhammad Tufail v. Munir Ahmad and another (PLD 2001 SC 13). It is very much clear from the bare perusal of the evidence available on record that the pre-emptor did not make immediate demand while sitting with his father when he was told about the sale of the land. He remained busy with his father in talking for half an hour and after that he left that place/meeting (Majlis) and then he pronounced his intent to exercise his right of pre-emption which is clearly not the intention of section 13 supra. The talk between petitioner/plaintiff and his father also constitutes a consultation which also negates the intention of Talb-i-Muwathibat which is surely a jumping demand. It is further established from the evidence available on record that he was also not sure about the source of knowledge about the sale of the disputed land. At one stage he said that the said sale came into his knowledge through his father and at second stage in cross-examination he accepted that he was told by Muhammad Akhtar about the sale of disputed land.
6. Taking into account of the above factors, I am not at all in agreement with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are minor discrepancies in the matter in issue. All the said discrepancies are major in nature and against the mandatory requirements of law in the matter.
7. For the preceding reasons, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. So, instant revision petition comes to nothing and is dismissed in limine .