' Through this civil revision the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jampur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant was accepted, by way of which, the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jampur decreeing the suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, were set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2003 the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of land in favour of respondent/defendant through Mutation No. 1718 attested on 24.10.2002. The written statement was filed and suit was contested. Issues were framed and the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2003. Feeling aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred by the respondent/defendant-judgment debtor before the learned first appellate Court, which was accepted vide judgment & decree dated 04.03.2004, whereby suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.
4. I have noticed that in Para 3 of the plaint no time of knowledge of impugned sale has been mentioned. One of the plaintiffs appeared as PW-1, who has not stated the time of knowledge of impugned sale. PW-2 has stated the time as 9:30/9:45 am, there is a difference of 15 minutes. PW-3 the Informer has stated the time as 10:00 a.m. In the light of celebrated judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302(Mian Pir Muhammad and another vs. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. And others)" the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been able to prove their case pleaded by them, as a plaintiff of pre-emption suit under the law has to plead and prove the date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale and till the time he is not able to prove the specific date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale, he cannot succeed in a preemption suit. Furthermore, the acknowledgement due has been produced in the statement of plaintiff under objection and further that the Postman has not been produced to prove the service of notice of Talh-e-/shhad upon the defendant. Therefore, Talb-e-Ishhad has not been proved in accordance with law. I would like to take light from the Judgment of august Supreme Court reported as "2013 SCM R 866 (Allah Ditta through L.Rs. And others Vs. Muhammad Anar)". In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are in accordance with law, as no any illegality or material irregularity has been shown by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
Therefore, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the, CPC has been made out. Resultant, this civil revision having no force stands dismissed.