' In a suit for possession through pre-emption, the petitioners were non-suited on account of their failure to perform Talb-iMuwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with law. The judgment of the learned trial Court is dated 13.06.2000, whereas that of the learned first appellate Court is dated 03.06.2002. Being aggrieved of the said judgments, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition under Section 115, CPC.
2. Nobody has turned up on' behalf of the petitioners. However, considering that it is an old matter, I have heard arguments, addressed by learned counsel for the respondent and have myself gone through the documents annexed with this petition and proceed to decide the same in the absence of the petitioner.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the respondents, it is observed that the learned first appellate Court in the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment has observed as under:- "From the above discussion, it is safely concluded that notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was not sent to the respondent/defendant. The plaintiffs/appellants have` miserably failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad as required by law, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and there is no illegality or irregularity found in the impugned judgment. Under the circumstances, the judgment, and decree of trial Court are upheld. The parties shall bear their own costs."
4. The above observation of the learned first appellate Court is borne out as correct from the record. In this regard, statement of Haji Allah Diwaya may be referred to, who states that he alongwith Haji. Faiz Muhammad was present in his Baithak, when Haji Bashir came and informed about the sale in dispute and he then and there expressed his intention to pre-empt the sale and thus performed the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat. However, the said Haji Bashir has not been produced despite being available, therefore, performance of, Talb-i-Muwathibat lacks proof in this case. Similarly, the respondent/defendant specifically maintained in Para No, 5 of the written statement that the petitioners/plaintiffs had not fulfilled the requirements of Talbs. Yet the petitioners did not produce the postman to prove that the notice was dispatched at the given address of the respondent. It has been ruled by the Apex Court is the case titled "Allah Ditta through L.Rs, and others Vs. Muhammad Anar" (2013 SCM R 866) that non-production of postman is fatal to a pre-, emptor in a pre-emption case. This being so, no exception can be taken to the findings, recorded by both the learned Courts below with regard to failure of the petitioners/plaintiffs to perform the requisite Talbs in accordance with law, as such the impugned judgments are based upon proper appreciation of material available on record and correct application of law applicable thereto. No reason to interfere with the impugned judgments is made out by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, has no merit, which fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(R.A.) .