' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.---This Revision, Petition is directed against the concurrent judgments decrees of the learned Civil Judge-V, Lakki Marwat dated 12.9.2007 and of learned District Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 18.5.2009 vide which suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.
2. Succinct facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on the basis of mutation No, 863, dated 19.1.2005 land measuring 12 kanals, 17 Marlas situated in the local limits of Moza Choki Jand, Janubi Taraf Achu Khel was purchased by petitioner/defendant Zaffaran. The sale was pre-empted by respondent/plaintiff Baidullah Jan, by claiming his superior right of pre-emption on all the three grounds allowed by the law.
3. The averments made in the plaint of plaintiff are that he got knowledge of the suit sale regarding attestation of mutation dated 26.3.2005 at "after Sham prayers" at his house through his son Muhammad Ishaq (also witness of Talb-iIsh'had), he there and then performed Talb-i-Muwathibat and later on, on 29.03.2005, sent notice Talb-i-Ish'had through registered post with AD to the petitioner/defendant, but the defendant/vendee did not reply to me same.
4. After summoned the petitioner/defandant appeared and Contested the suit by submitting written statement. The averments made in the plaint regarding Talbs were evasively denied by the defendant in his written statement.
5. On divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues: ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the suit is within time?
(3) Whether plaintiff has got superior right of preemption?
'(4) Whether the plaintiff has performed Talbs according to law?
(5) What is market value of the suit property and whether the sale consideration is fixed in good faith?
(6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(7) Relief.
6. To prove his case, the plaintiff produced Patwari Halqa as PW-1, Ghulam Sadiq postmaster as PW-2, plaintiff himself as PW-3, Munawar Khan as PW-4 and Muhammad Ishaq as PW-5 marginal witnesses, while defendant was only the sole witness in his defence.
7. After conclusion of the trial and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff. The same judgment and decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge/Appellate Court. Dissatisfied by the impugned concurrent judgments and decrees, the petitioners have assailed through instant Revision Petition.
8. Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both the judgments and decrees of learned Courts below are against the law and based on non-reading and misreading of evidence, as plaintiff did not mention the time of Talab-e-Muwathibat rather mentioned "after sham prayer", which does not qualify the meaning of time. Secondly, the respondent/plaintiff could not establish the case on the ground that he has failed to prove all the Talbs. The learned counsel's main objection was the statements of plaintiff's witnesses. According to him, the statements of plaintiff's witnesses are full of contradictions. He relied on cited case "Syed Munawar Hussain Shah and another v. Sahb Khan" (2013 CLC 1488).
9. Conversely, Muhammad Aslam Khan Machan Khel, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below and stated that respondent/plaintiff successfully proved the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad and learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has accepted the oral evidence, so produced by him to substantiate his plea, therefore, the findings on facts recorded in this behalf warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
11. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption on 5.4.2005 regarding the sale of suit land measuring 12 Kanals, 17 marlas situated at village Chowki Jand Southern side Actin Khel through mutation No, 863 attested on 9.1.2005. In the plaint he averred that on 26.3.2005 at the time "after Sham prayers" in his home when he was informed by his son Muhammad Ishaq, he there and then performed Talb-i-Muwathibat. Later on, he sent the notice Talb-i-Ishhad, attested by two truthful witnesses through registered post with acknowledgment due to the vendee/defendant. That registered post received by the vendee/defendant and returned the AD card to the pre-emptor.
The plaintiff annexed the same with his plaint.
12. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that -after Sham prayer" does not qualify the specific time which is necess'ry to be mentioned in plaint. I am not agree with argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as definition of time is not so 'narrow that only be determined in minutes and seconds of the wrist watch. A person who does not wear the wrist watch can specify the time just like words "after Sham prayer". When one further goes deep into the words "After sham Prayer" he observes that it cannot be stretched into hours, rather in specific context of date, time can be calculated. Any phrase of words in any language, denotes a specific time and which can be calculated in hours and minutes, comes within the definition of specific time I fortify my view, by placing reliance on the judgment of apex Court in case titled "Abdul Latif alias Muhammad Latif alias Baku v. Dil Mir and others" (2010 SCM R 1087). This view has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case Civil Appeal No: 1058 of 2011 titled, Muhammad Hanif v.. Tariq Mehmood, decided on 13th Feb., 2014, wherein it is held that: "The reference to the time of making of Talab-e-Muwathibat in the plaint and in the testimony of the witnesses is the same, namely, Sham. The answer to the question whether the Talb was made immediately upon receipt of the information is to be found from the evidence. In the present case the appellant had averred in the plaint that upon receiving information of the transaction from Siraj Din he straightaway declared his intention of to pre-empt the same. To the same effect is the testimony of the appellant. The immediacy of the making of the Talb- cannot be tested with reference to the time by the watch. If that argument is accepted, every witness to the Talb would be required to mention the time by the minute or fraction of a minute of the receipt of the information and making of the Talbs. Such precision of timing by the minute or seconds would practically be impossible." _
13. To prove the factum of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad the plaintiff examined himself as PW-3, produced informer Muhammad Ishaq who is also one of marginal witness of notice Talb-i- Ishhad as PW-5, Munawar Khan other marginal witness as PW-4, and Ghulam Sadiq postman as PW-2.
14. The evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondent with respect to the performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ish'had is consistent, confidence inspiring and all the witnesses produced by the plaintiff/respondent i,e, preemptor, are unanimous in their version with regard to the date, time of information and place of conveying information to the respondent/plaintiff. They have been subjected to the lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been squeezed from their mouths to shatter their testimony.
15. The case titled "Syed Munawar Hussain Shah and another v. Sahib Khan" (2013 CLC 1484) referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported his version, as in the cited case the plaintiff had failed to perform Talb-iMuwathibat, without mentioning a specific time by over stretching such Talb and Would amount to striking at the very root of concept of jumping demand.
As against the case in hand, the plaintiff specified the time "after Sham prayer" in the plaint, that is come within the ambit of specified time as required by Pre-emption law.
16. As far as Talb-i-Ish'had is concerned. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he sent the notice of Talb-i-Ish'had attested by two witnesses through registered post AD to the petitioner/defendant vendee. This averment of plaint was neither controverted by the defendant specifically in his written statement nor delivery of notice of Talb-i-Ish'had was denied. The defendant when appeared before the Court and recorded his statement as DW-1, in his cross-examination .He admitted the delivery of notice in the following words:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He further admitted receipt of notice Talb-i-Ish'had and his signature on the AD as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}} In such situation, a presumption of service of notice Talb-i-Ish'had is proved, unless rebutted. There is no rebuttal of service of notice in the written statement as well as evidence produced by petitioner/defendant. Reliance can be placed on case titled "Muhammad Bashir and others v.
Abbas Ali Shah" (2007 SCM R 1105) (2002 SCM R 219).
17. Both the learned Trial Court as well Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff has proved the requirements of Talbs in accordance with law which need no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of facts, as the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited in which the Courts are always slow in reversing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same even if on appreciation of evidence a different view can be formed unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of b2re misreading and non- reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. No such infirmity has been pointed out by both the parties in the concurrent judgment, which may warrant interference of this Court. Reference, in this regard can be made to case titled "Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 315).
18. For the reasons discussed above, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Concurrent Finding Upheld/Revision .