ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J.---This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.6.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Talagang Distt.
Chakwal, whereby suit of the petitioner for possession through pre-emption was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2006 passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Talagang whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Hakim Khan and others sold land measuring 16 kanals 7 marlas situated in Khewats Nos. 401 and 542 in the revenue estate of Kotehra, Tehsil Talagang Distt. Chakwal to the respondents. The petitioner claiming to be co-sharer of the said land and having thus superior right over the defendants pre-empted the sale by way of suit for possession through pre-emption. The suit was contested by the defendants/ respondents and on divergent pleadings of the parties as many as nine issues were framed by learned trial Court out of which Issue No, 7 was to the following effect:-- "7. Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled all the requirements of talbs in accordance with law? OPP."
' After analysis of evidence led by both the parties on this issue learned trial Court observed that although Talb-e-Muwathibat was proved by the plaintiff with cogent evidence. However, he failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhad through unimpeachable evidence and as such dismissed the suit answering this issue against the plaintiff. The appeal of the petitioner before learned Addl. Distt.
Judge also failed as mentioned above. Hence this petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The plaintiff/petitioner averred in the plaint that he issued notices of Talb-e-Ishhad to the defendants/ respondents on 16.11.1998. The respondents, however, controverted this claim in the written statement. It was stance of the petitioner/plaintiff that he got drafted notices of Talb-e- Ishhad from his counsel which were signed/thumb marked by the witnesses and served the same upon the defendants/respondents. At trial apart from his evidence, he produced marginal witnesses of the notices and the post master of concerned post office. The plaintiff also produced copies of notices sent to the respondents. The plaintiff entered the witness box as P.W. 2 and deposed that on 13.11.1998 at evening time he advised the marginal witnesses for proceeding to the office of his counsel on 16.11.1998 to get drafted notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. Ghulam Rubani P.W. 3 disclosed that on 13.11.1998 in the morning the plaintiff directed him for visit of chamber of counsel for notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. P.W.4 however deposed that at noon time on 13.11.1998 the plaintiff had directed him to meet on 16.11.1998 to proceed to the Chamber of his counsel. This is a major contradiction in the statements of the P.Ws. And the learned trial Court non-suited the plaintiff inter alia A on this point that Talb-e-Ishhad was not proved.
5. Necessary ingredient to fulfill the requirement of Talb-e-Ishhad is that it is imperative upon the pre-emptor to serve notice upon the vendee conveying him that having superior right over the vendee he wants to purchase the disputed land as he is in need of same and in case he is not given the same he intends to pre-empt. In order to prove Talb-e-Ishhad as stated above, the plaintiff also produced marginal witnesses. Contradictions in their statements have been noted above. Besides these witnesses the plaintiff also produced Javaid Akhtar, Post Master as PW.5. He deposed that according to the record of his office registry Nos. 61, 62 and 63 were sent to the respondents. He explained that registry No, 63/1611 was sent in the name of Muhammad Mushtaq which was delivered on 17.11.1998, registry No, 61 was sent in the name of Muhammad Saeed which was delivered on 19.11.1998 and registry No, 62 was sent in the name of Muhammad Ashraf which was delivered on 19.11.1998 as per their record. It appears that this witness placed on record acknowledgement due receipts as Exh. P.5 to Exh. P.7. In cross-examination he disclosed that he was not the post master at relevant time. He candidly conceded that the notices might have been distributed by his predecessor Allah Din who was alive and was also in service. Thus the evidence of this witness may prove that notices were received in his post office for delivery to the respondents but there is no sufficient evidence as to whether the same were onward delivered to the respondents or not. It is strange that the registered acknowledgment due receipts were statedly produced by this post master. In normal course of events these acknowledgement due receipts should have been in possession of the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to prove as to how these receipts (Exh. P.5 to P.7) came into possession of this witness. It is equally strange that although it was clearly mentioned in the statement of this witness that some documents had been exhibited as P.5 to P.7 but there is no document/receipt available on record exhibited with said number. Retaining these registered acknowledgement due receipts by the post office means that notices were not delivered to the defendants/respondents and the receipts did not carry their signatures as token of having received notices. That is why they were not returned to the plaintiff and no such receipts were produced by the plaintiff. Failing to place on record such receipts also reveals intention of the plaintiff to conceal this material lacunae. Although the plaintiff did not utter a word in examination-in-chief that he ever sent the notices to the defendants/respondents by way of post office. However, during cross-examination he claimed to have sent the notices through registered A.D. Once he had claimed this mode of service of notice upon the defendants it was obligatory for him to prove that said notices were duly received by them. Failing to produce the post man who had delivered these notices to the defendants/respondents and in absence of any registered acknowledgement receipt it cannot be said that the notices were served upon them.
Thus the plaintiff has' failed to prove Talb-e-Ishhhl and his suit was rightly dismissed on This score.
Steering thoughts in this regard can be taken from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Bashi and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (2007 SCM R 1105), Bashir Ahmad v.
Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCM R 762) and Allah Ditta through L.Rs, and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCM R 866).
6. The suit filed by the petitioner was concurrently dismissed. Both the courts below thoroughly examined the evidence available on record and passed the concurrent judgments. It is settled proposition of law that the powers of this court under revisional jurisdiction are limited in nature and not called upon to reappraise and re-evaluate merits of the case involving concurrent findings of courts below in absence of any illegality or non reading/sim-reading of evidence. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Kanwal Nain v. Fateh Khan (PLD 1983 SC 53), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCM R 1469) and Maulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mahmood Khan Bangish and another (2010 SCM R 817).
7. In the light of above discussion and observations, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.