Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- This civil revision is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2003 and 11.12.2001, whereby the learned Courts below dismissed the Suit for Possession through Pre-emption, filed by the petitioner.
2. Shortly the facts as stated in the record are; that the petitioner instituted a suit for Possession through Preemption against the respondent pre-empting the sale of the suit land measuring 13 kanal 03 marla, contending therein that the suit land was owned and possessed by Basheer Ahmad and Mushtaq Ahmad; that the defendant without giving any notice to the petitioner purchased the suit property through mutation No.4939, dated 20.12.1995 for consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and in order to frustrate the right of pre-emption of the petitioner, fictitiously mentioned the consideration as Rs.2,00,000/-; that the sale came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 30.01.1996 at 9:00am and the petitioner there and then announced his intention to pre-empt the sale; that the notices in order to perform the Talb-e-Ishhad were sent on the same day through registered AD attested by two witnesses; that the petitioner is Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar, therefore, has a superior right of preemption than the respondent. Lastly prayed that the petitioner has time and again asked the respondent to concede the request of the petitioner but he refused.
The suit was seriously contested by the other side controverting the contents of the plaint, whereupon the learned trial court framed as many as sixteen issues, recorded the evidence of the respective parties and finally dismissed the suit on 11.12.2001, against which an appeal was filed, which too was dismissed vide judgment on 13.05.2003. Hence, this Civil Revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on the point; that the learned Courts below without adverting to the evidence of PW-4, who is informer, have dismissed the suit, therefore, all the findings recorded by the learned courts below are liable to be set aside. Further submitted; that the petitioner has been non-suited on minor discrepancies, which is not permitted by law. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment titled "Dr. Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Haji Noor Muhammad" (2002 SCM R 219).
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent seriously opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove her case and further has also failed to perform the pre-requisites to pre-empt the sale in question.
Learned counsel relied upon the judgment cited as "Muhammad Afzal v. Manzoor Elahi" (2003 YLR 477).
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is sussing out from the record, that the petitioner while filing the plaint in paragraph No.3 mentioned, that she received information about the sale in question on 30.01.1996 at 9:00am through one Adalat Khan (PW-4) in the presence of Muhammad Khan but while appearing in the witness box as PW-3, the petitioner has stated that the information about the sale in question was received 01 year and 09 months earlier i.e. 18.01.1996; one Muhammad Khan who appeared as PW-5 and also witness of Talb-eMuwathibat stated on 18.10.1997, that while sitting in the house of the petitioner before 01 year and 09 months one Adalat Khan (PW-4) came there and told the petitioner about the sale in question, therefore, in this way the PW-5 one of the witness of Talb-e- Muwathibat also followed the statement made by the petitioner.
The afore-referred discrepancy which is available on the record and not denied by the petitioner is of serious nature and cannot be ignored and over looked under the preemption law. The learned Courts below after careful perusal of the afore-referred contradiction in the version of the petitioner, have finally rightly concluded that the petitioner has failed to prove the Talb-e- Muwathibat.
7. As regard the Talb-e-Ishhad the petitioner, in the plaint, has stated that to perform the Talb-e- Ishhad, the notices were sent on the same day i.e. 30.01.1996 but while appearing in the witness box under oath she stated that the notices were sent on 18.01.1996 and the PW-5 who is one of the witness of Talb-e-Muwathibat has also given the similar statement, thus this type of the contradiction in the record is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to exercise his right of pre- emption, therefore, the learned courts below have not committed any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect to hold that the petitioner has miserably failed to fulfill the requirements of talabs as required by law to preempt the sale in question.
8. The judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner has no nexus with the facts of this case and is not helpful to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for respondent during the course of his arguments has relied upon the judgment titled "Muhammad Afzal v. Manzoor Elahi" (2003 YLR 477), wherein this Court after careful appreciation of the plethora of judgment finally concluded in the following words:- "As mentioned above, though in the plaint the assertion was that the petitioner came to know of the sale on 18-2-1993, yet while appearing as P.W.1, the petitioner and P.W.2, Lal Khan, did not state like that an instead a loose deposition was made that it was a year and 9 months from today, when the petitioner got knowledge about the sale. Such a statement did not coincide with the assertion made and the date pleaded in the plaint. Since the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 14.11.1994, the learned Appellate Court rightly calculated the period and came to the conclusion that the date of knowledge thus would have been 14-2-1993 and not 18-2-1993 (as was asserted in the plaint) and thus it was not of case of making jumping demand as was envisaged by section 13 of the Act. The perusal of statements of the petitioner and his witnesses does not show that the Appellate Court misread or non-read their depositions. A mere possibility of another view of the depositions made by the witnesses would not render the finding given by the Court as illegal. It may be observed that the petitioner or his witnesses could quite easily state the date of knowledge as had been mentioned in the plaint, but they failed to adhere to the same and made the statement: {{ URDU TEXT }} Such statements had thus necessarily to be interpreted by the Court which the learned Appellate Court was obliged to do."
10. Even otherwise the learned courts below have concurrently concluded that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the mandatory pre-requisite i.e. Talabs to pre-empt the sale in question and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also argued the case at length but could not point out any legal infirmity or irregularity with the concurrent conclusion rendered by the learned Courts below.
I find support from the valuable judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled "Cantonment Board through Executive Officer Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCM R 161), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469), Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmate-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373), Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCM R 984), Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another (2008 SCM R 428), and "Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Kallu and others"
(2008 SCM R 452), that the High Court, in the case of concurrent findings, normally does not interfere unless the same is result of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the learned courts below.
11. The learned counsel repeatedly submitted, that evidence of PW-4 has not been adverted to by the learned Courts below but to my mind, the learned Courts below have carefully perused the complete record and delivered the judgment. Even otherwise, the stance of the petitioner is itself contradictory and the contradiction is evident from the record therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel has no substance.
12. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the learned Courts below. Resultantly, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to cost.