' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision petitioner has challenged the judgment & decree dated 8.3.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kallur Kot whereby appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the judgment & decree dated 4.1.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kallur Kot decreeing the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff for pre-emption, were set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner on 17.2.2005 filed a suit to presempt the sale of land through Mutation No, 1373 attested on 21.10.2004 in favour. Of defendant. Written statement was filed, suit was contested, wherein it was staled that the plaintiff, defendant and the vendee are real brothers and the sale of land was offered to the plaintiff but on his refusal the defendant purchased the suit land and the sale was in his knowledge from the day of attestation of mutation and Talabs have not been fulfilled, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed.
Parties were invited to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After closing of trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 4.1.2010 decreed the suit to the extent of half of the suit property declaring that both plaintiff and defendant have equal right of pre-emption. Appeal was preferred by the vendee-defendant which was accepted vide judgment & decree dated 8.3.2011. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel .For the petitioner argues that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are well-reasoned and in accordance with the evidence available on the file and states that the plaintiff has fully proved his case, therefore, prays for acceptance of this civil revision and decree of the suit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the findings recorded by learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with the evidence available on the file and prays for dismissal of the instant civil revision.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at full length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that the statement of PW-1 who is dishonest witness is visible from the record that he has admitted that after 18 months the record of the Post Office with regard to service of any registered post is sent to the Central Post Office but he retained the record of the alleged service of defendant even after the expiry of 18 months without any, order from the Court. When defendant has denied from receipt of the registered letter acknowledgement due pertaining to the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad and the acknowledgement due was produced, it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the alleged thumb impression of the defendant on acknowledgement due with regard to the receipt of notice, at the time when he appeared as his own witness as DW-1 but he was not confronted with the thumb impression upon the alleged receipt acknowledgement due. From the perusal of the statement of PW-4 Saif Ullah it is clear that he has admitted that Hameed Ullah the plaintiff has not given any notice to the defendant. Further the plaintiff was required under the law to plead specific date, time and place of knowledge of sale as well as making the jumping demand and the same was to be proved through the evidence and the pleadings cannot be equated with the evidence. The plaintiff has not mentioned, in his statement while appearing as PW-2 the time of knowledge of sale as well as making of Talb-eMwathebat i.e, the jumping demand. Lame is the position of the statement of PW-3 Yousaf. In this view of the matter, while relying upon "Mian Pir Muhammad and another versus Faqir Muhammad and others" (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302) I hold that the Talabs were not proved in accordance with law. Moreover, when PW-3 Yousaf has admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know that what was written in the notice, therefore he cannot be said to be a truthful witness. Further the case of plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that on 1.11.2004 at 3:00 p.m. Yousaf Khan informed him, whereas PW-4 Saif Ullah who is father-in--law of the plaintiff also stated in his cross-examination that Yousaf came to the plaintiff at 12:00 (noon), in this, way there is a difference of about 3 hours in the time pleaded and said by this witness
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that plaintiff has failed. To prove the date, time and place of knowledge as well as jumping demand in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by -this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115 of the' CPC has been made out. Consequently, this civil revision being devoid of any substance stands dismissed. Revision .