1. SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 23-10-2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Karak, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment dated 8-6-2011 recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge, Karak was dismissed.
2. 2.Facts relevant for the disposal of present revision in brief are as under:--- It so happenedthatonthebasisofMutationNo.2647dated2-12-2008 land measuring 2 Kanals, 10 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos.268, 270, 272 and 561 situated in the local limits of Mauza Kabir Kala, was purchased by Mohabat Shah for an ostensible amount of Rs.1,25,000. The sale was pre-empted by Guldar Shah pre-emptor/petitioner, claiming his superior right of pre-emption on all the grounds allowed by law, admitting the sale consideration as sum of Rs.1,25,000 to be correct.
3. When put to notice, vendee/respondent contested the suit by submitting his written statement, wherein he raised several objections both legal and factual. According to the vendee/respondent since the pre-emptor was having knowledge of the suit transaction much earlier and since he has declared his intention to pre-empt the transaction at belated stage, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned lower court after recording evidence of the parties for and against, non-suited the pre- emptor on the grounds that he has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 13 of the Pre-emption Act successfully vide its judgment dated 8-6-2011 and aggrieved from the same, the pre-emptor filed an appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Karak, but with no premium and hence this petition.
5. 3.I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record appended with the petition.
6. 4.Admittedly and as is evident from the record in the present case the pre-emptor has been non- suited by the two courts below solely on the ground that he has not been able to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 13 of the Act referred to earlier. As per version of the pre-emptor he is serving in Islamabad and hence was having no knowledge about the suit transaction, that on 10-2-2009, he came to his village and on 11-2-2009 he was informed by his son Hamza Ali about the attestation of impugned mutation and hence he there and then declared his intention to pre- empt the suit transaction. As against that, as stated earlier, it is asserted by the respondent/vendee that the pre-emptor was having knowledge of the suit transaction much earlier and that he has made immediate demand at belated stage. Appearing as P.W.2, the pre- emptor has stated in support of the contents of the plaint. During the cross-examination he has admitted that the vendee/respondent is his cousin. He further deposed that at the time of getting knowledge of the suit transaction which was conveyed to him by his son, he was all alone. He has also admitted that Hamza Ali who is his son and the informer in the present case always present in his village and as such never go outside. Appearing as P.W.3 Hamza Ali has stated that he had gone to village Sabirabad in connection with offering of Zuhar prayer, that after prayer he was present in a hotel and was taking tea when got information about the suit mutation and hence on coming to his home, he informed his father, the pre-emptor. When put to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent/vendee, he set the ball rolling in his (vendee) favour by deposing that he was sitting in the hotel of his Tarboor but at the same time he has shown ignorance about his name. He further deposed that while sitting in the hotel nobody made queries from him regarding the land in dispute, that he came to know about the suit transaction at his own end but at the same time he has shown ignorance about the persons and even their names as to from whom he got the information of the attestation of suit mutation.
7. From the cross-examination of Hamza Ali, who is the informer and son of the petitioner one could reach to the safe conclusion that there is some hanky panky and that the conduct of both the pre- emptor and his son insofar as the knowledge in respect of the suit transaction is concerned, is not above-board. There is no two opinion about this fact that Talb-e-Muwathibat being pure question of fact requires proof through convincing evidence, failing which the pre-emptor would face legal consequences. Informer being son of the pre-emptor has failed to prove that he has got the information regarding the suit mutation in the hotel where he was taking tea. The circumstance do reveals that Hamza Ali who is son of the pre-emptor and who has informed him about the impugned mutation was having knowledge of the transaction much earlier and as such he was supposed to inform his father much earlier than the date he conveyed it to him and which position stands rightly appreciated by the two courts below.
8. Again it is well settled principle of law that in case the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which is upheld by the first Appellate Court, this Court seldom interfere unless and until the discretion is exercised arbitrarily. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. unless and until judgments of the Courts below are the result of misreading or non- reading of evidence or decision of the case is in violation of the parameters prescribed by the superior Courts. The Courts below have properly discussed the evidence on record and I have not been able to find out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
9. Wisdom is also derived from a case "Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others" (2000 SCM R 431) where it has been held by their lordship that:-- "ConcurrentfindingsoftwoCourtsbelow---Leavetoappeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether in exercise of jurisdiction under S.115 of C.P.C. High Court was legallyjustifiedtointerfereintheconcurrentfindingsof factsoftwoCourtsbelowasregardsrejectionofsale-deed based on finding that the same was also not a genuine document---Such findings of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were based on elaborate, careful and correct appraisal of evidence and did not suffer from any misreading--- Such findings could not legally be interfered with under S.115 of C.P.C---Judgment of High Court was set aside and those of the two Courts below restored."
10. Reference can also be made to a case "Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2010 SCM R 5).
11. In view of the above the revision petition stands dismissed in limine.