' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 11-2-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I.
Khan whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 27-10-2008 of learned Civil Judge, Kulachi, District D.I.Khan was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit against the respondents/defendants for possession through pre-emption in respect of the property, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint having been purchased through registered sale deed No,14 dated 25-10-2003 for sale consideration of Rs,1,10,000.
3. , The respondents-defendants appeared before the Court and contested the suit by filing their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues arising out of the divergent pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Kulachi, District D.LKhan dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27-10-2008.
4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 27-10-2008 the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 11-2-2010, hence the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has performed taibs in accordance with law but courts below have taken the matter from wrong angle into account and arrived at a wrong conclusion. He added that plaintiff, being illiterate rustic villager cannot be expected to have knowledge of intricacies of law, even then she performed the talbs and has successfully complied with the provisions of law of pre-emption. He contended that despite proof through tangible evidence courts below have illegally non-suited the plaintiff in an arbitrary fashion and warrants interference by this Court. He also argued that revenue record speaks about the superior right of petitioner/plaintiff and entitles her for decree in her favour.
6. As against that, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence produced by the plaintiff. He contended that notice issued by the vendors in the name of petitioner/plaintiff on 21-4-2003 informing her about sale of property and offered her to purchase it, which was replie by her, contending therein that she was not ready to purchase at the rate mentioned in notice, however, ready to purchase on lower rate, but not mentioned the quantum of rate/valued of land, and as such had the knowledge of sale on 21-4- 2003.
7. I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the valuable record with their able assistance.
8. The contents of plaint in para-1 reveal that plaintiff had received notice dated 21-4-2003 on behalf of vendor, Abdul Majeed and another, disclosing their intention to sell the property in dispute which was also replied by the plaintiff and refused to purchase the same on the rate mentioned therein. These documents were annexed with the plaint by the plaintiff. The notice was also admitted in her statement by the plaintiff as well as Abdul Majeed. She narrated in para-4 that on 8-1-2003 at 10 PM at her house situated in Mohallah Bara Khel Kulachi, acquired knowledge through Abdul Qayyum and announced her intention immediately to pre-empt the transaction and later on notice Talb-e-Ishhad was got scribed on 14-11-2003 and mailed through registered A/D to the defendant.
9. The revenue record reveals that she is not co-owner in the suit property, however, she has based her right on contiguity as she is contiguous owner to the suit property. The registered deed, through which property in dispute has .Been purchased, is available on file, as Exh.P.W.2/1 wherein Rs,5,50,000 entered and has shown to have been paid before Sub-Registrar Kulachi. One year average, Exh.P.W.3/D-1, reveals the value of suit land as Rs,5,15,792, which is nearer to the value mentioned in registered deed and has been paid bonafidely and Rs,5,50,000 fixed as market value of the suit land as mentioned in the deed.
10. So far as, the factum of talbs is concerned, she deposed as P. W.6 in examination-in-chief, apparently corroborated the contents of plaint, however, to the extent of notice Talb-e-Ishhad she attorned her husband, who has got scribed notices signed there as attorney and mailed to defendants. She made Talb-e-Muwathibat herself and deposed in the Court personally but made second talb through attorney, which does not stand to reason and was not authorized to attorn her agent for the purpose, as Talbs are pure personal act and is to be performed in person. The husband/attorney was not present at the time of Talb-e-Muwathibat and knows nothing about first Talb and second Talb being confirmation of Talb-e-Muwathibat can be performed only by the plaintiff or even if through the person at least present at the time of Talb-e-Muwathibat, however, person not present at the time of first Talb cannot be held competent to perform the second Talb and as such second Talb being not performed properly, has no footing and would amount to nonperformance of it, in accordance with law.
11. 'The plaintiff, besides herself, examined her husband Abdur Rashid as P.W.8 who brought on file power of attorney as Exh.P.W.8/1 and deposed that he was attorned on 10-11-2003 i,e, after Talb-e- Muwathibat and he sent notices on 14-11-2003. He admits notice sent by vendor to the plaintiff in cross examination. The plaintiff, her informer, her attorney/husband coupled with plaint and notices are silent about the presence of one Hamesh Gul, who appeared as P.W.9. None of witnesses including plaintiff deposed that Hamesh Gul was present at the time of Talb-e- Muwathibat but he deposed about his presence, which is contradiction, grave in nature, fatal to case. The question is that if he was present, why plaintiff and informer have concealed this fact and if not present, how he deposed his presence. Out of these two sets, one is definitely telling lie, which amounts to disqualification in view of provisions of pre-emption law regarding truthfulness of witness and as such the entire case built upon by the plaintiff crumbles down, amounts to non- compliance of provisions of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Preemption Act, 1987. Moreover, prior knowledge of the plaintiff in the light of admitted notice by the vendor and her statement coupled with the statement of her husband. Cannot be ruled out. Both the learned 'Courts below rightly appraised the evidence brought on record by the parties and arrived at just and legal conclusion while non-suiting the petitioner/plaintiff. The judgments of the Courts below are not suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence calling for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction..
12. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the instant revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.