' SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---This civil revision calls in question the judgment dated 14-5-2009, passed by learned District Judge, Karak, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2007 recorded by learned Civil Judge, Banda Daud Shah, Karak, was dismissed.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the present civil revision in brief are as under:- ' It so happened that on the basis of sale Mutation No, 946 attested on 27-1-2003, land measuring 7 kanals bearing Khasra No, 2135 situated in the local limits of moza khurram was purchased by Abdul Diyan defendant/ vendee for an ostensible amount of Rs,4,20,000. The sale was pre-empted by the petitioner/pre-emptor claiming his superior right of pre-emption on all the grounds allowed by law and giving the sale consideration as sum of Rs,2,00,000 or whatever is fixed by the Court.
' Here it is pertinent 'to note that the impugned transaction was also pre-empted by the rival pre- emptors, but none of them have impugned the judgment of the courts below, except the petitioner.
3. When put on notice by the lower Court vendee/defendant contested the suit by submitting his written statement raising so many objections, both legal and factual. The learned lower court recorded evidence of the parties for and against and on 5-1-2005 they were non-suited, however, in appeal the case was remitted back to the learned lower court, where again both the pre-emptor and rival pre-emptors were non-suited, whereafter, they filed separate appeals in the court of learned District Judge, Karak, but with no premium to them and hence this revision petition which is filed by. Noor Marjan the pre-emptor/ petitioner.
4. Arguments heard and record appended with the petition perused.
5. As per version of the pre-emptor, on 8-2-2003, he was present in the Baithak of one Qabil Badshah, when got information about the suit transaction through Zard Ali and hence, he there and then declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption followed by issuance of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on 10-2-2003. Admittedly the plaintiff was informed about the suit transaction by Zard Ali, but he has not been examined and the only inference that one could draw from such course of events is that he might not have supported the pre-emptor, if he had been produced as witness. Reference cam be made to case-law "Sarwar Ahmad v. Iftikhar Ahmad and others" (2012 YLR 2348 Lahore) wherein it is held that:-- "Plaintiff had not produced the alleged informer from whom he had obtained the information of the transaction, and the informer, from whom the plaintiff had received information, under the law, had to be produced."
' Similarly, in case "Mst Zahida Parveen v. Mst. Parveen Akhter" (2012 CLC 1497) it is held that: "Non production of the person, from whom pre-emptor received knowledge of sale could lead to an adverse inference to he drawn that he might not have supported the pre-emptor, if he had been produced as a witness"
6. Again copy of notice as Exh.P.W.2/1, is available on file and perusal of the same would show that in its body the names of Noor Khan and Awal Khan have been mentioned and which fact the petitioner has admitted in the following words:- "It is correctly mentioned in my notice Ex: P. W.2/1 that Noor Khan son of Noor Jan and Awal Khan son of Alan: Khan has attested mutations for their respective land and I have made/ announced Talb-e-Muwathibat against them."
7. In view of above one could reach to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner/pre-emptor has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of S.13 of the Pre-emption Act successfully and which position stands rightly appreciated by the courts below in its concurrent findings, resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Revrsion dismissed.