' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 19-12-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I. Khan, whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13-4-2011 of the learned Civil Judge, Paharpur, D.I. Khan has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 15 kanals 4 marlas situated in Wanda Feroz, Tehsil Paharpur, District D.I. Khan (fully detailed in the heading of the plaint). The petitioner alleged that he got knowledge of sale on 15-12-2011 at 1200 noon at his own house situated at Wanda Umari through one Ghazi Khan and immediately declared his intention to pre-empt the sale, followed by issuance of notice talb-e-ishhad on 22-12-2014(sic) .
3. The suit was contested by the respondent by submitting his written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues arising out of the 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, Paharpur, District D.I.Khan dismissed the suit of petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 13-4-2011.
4. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 13-4-2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, District D.I.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 19-12-2011. Hence the instant revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgments are against law and facts on record; that no specific form of expression of talb-e-muwathibat is described under the provisions contained in section 13 (1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Preemption Act, 1987, whereby any word indicative of intention of establishment of rights of pre-emption would be sufficient, but both the learned Courts below have not appreciated and correctly construed the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Preemption Act, 1987, which has occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the learned Courts below being competent Courts of law and facts have rendered concurrent findings on facts which are based on proper appreciation of law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Whether both the learned Courts below have properly and correctly appreciated the law on point of talb-e-muwathibat, it would not be out of context to reproduce the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 as below:-- "Demand of pre-emption.---(1) The right of pre-emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands of pre-emption in the following order, namely:-
(a) Talb-e-Muwathibat;
(b) Talb-i-ishhad,, that
(c) Talb-e-Khusumat.
' Explanation.. (i) "Talb-e-Muwathibat" means immediate demand by a pre-emptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
' Note: Any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption are sufficient.
' Explanation---(ii) "Talb-i-Ishhad" means demand by establishing evidence.
' Explanation---(iii) "Talb-e-Khusumat means demand by filing a suit."
'The bare reading of the above provisions reveals that these have been couched in mandatory and prohibitory form and non-performance of the talbs, necessary for establishment of right of pre- emption, exposes the pre-emptor to be non-suited. No doubt, the provisions of section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 have not prescribed particular mode or manner for the expression of the intention of preemption, but some words still have to be uttered by the pre- emptor which would support and indicate his intention to exercise right of pre-emption. Queries, inquiry and investigation with regard to the sale from any person/informer, without expressing his intention by words, could not be substituted for the first express demand as envisaged under the above provisions. Any such detailed inquiry and investigation with regard to the measurement, kind, location and price of the property sold after acquiring knowledge of sale and not at once in unequivocal terms express his intention of exercise of right of pre-emption is against the express mandate of section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. In the case in hand, the petitioner had not stated a single word with regard to his intention of exercise of right of pre- emption but did express his right of pre-emption on 22-12-2004, while he had acquired knowledge of sale of pre-empted property on 15-12-2015(sic) and thus has waived his right of pre-emption in terms of section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. It is not the mandate of law that some specific words to be expressed the indicate intention of exercise of right of pre-emption, but it is mandatory as explained under the head "Note" provided under section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 as any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre- emption and without indication of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption through any words, it could not be construed that Talb-e-Muwathibat is performed and established in accordance with the provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 and such incomplete, infructuous and erroneous kind of inquiry in regard to sale transaction not to be treated as jumping demand under section 13(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.
Both the learned Courts below have properly appreciated and construed the law through the impugned judgments, which warrant no legal interference, as no legal infirmity could be pointed out in the concurrent findings rendered on facts by competent Courts of law.
9. For the reasons given hereinabove, the revision petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed.