' MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.--- Suit for possession through pre-emption was instituted by the appellant against the respondents claiming superior right qua the respondents in respect of land measuring 36-Kanals situated in Village Rana, Tehsil Kamonki, District Gujranwala alienated in favour of respondents through mutation No,946 dated 17.03.2008.
' Suit was contested by the respondents on legal as well as factual premises resulting in casting of issues, recording pro and contra evidence and after conclusion of trial, suit was dismissed by the- learned Civil Court Gujranwala through judgment and decree dated 26th October, .2010.
2. Appellant being aggrieved by the said decree preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala which was returned to the appellant through order dated 13th December, 2012 for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings of learned trial court on issues Nos.1, 2 and 4 contended that evidence adduced by the appellant was sufficient to prove the requisite "Talbs" beside superior right of the appellant. Submitted that findings of learned trial court on issues Nos.1 and 2 are perverse, arbitrary and result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and as such are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents contended that appellant failed to prove the requisite Talbs in accordance with law. Submitted that appellant did not produce postman in order to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad which by itself was sufficient to non-suit the appellant and as such no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and decree.
5. Keeping-in view the evidence adduced by the parties particularly led by the appellant, as referred earlier, learned trial court non-suited the .Appellant on the question of fulfillment of requisite Talbs.
6. In order to prove issue No,2 with reference to performance of requisite "Talbs" the appellant while appearing as (PW-1) deposed that factum of sale was intimated to him on 17th March, 2008 at 8.00 pm by Haji Muhammad Khan, (PW-2) at his Dera. Also deposed that after getting information, he immediately made announcement regarding institution of suit for possession through pre- emption.
' Haji Muhammad Khan, informer while appearing as (PW-2) though supported the evidence of appellant stating that after getting knowledge regarding questioned sale from Halqa Patwari, he intimated the appellant about the questioned sale. Informer further stated that when factum of sale was intimated by him to the appellant, he made jump.
' Statement of informer (PW-2) regarding re-action of the appellant by itself was not sufficient to prove the factum of jumping demand. The expression " Jump" by no stretch of imagination can be considered as reflection of intention of the appellant to institute suit for possession through pre- emption. Re-action as suggested, even if shown, cannot be considered as an act to prove jumping demand.
Deposition of the informer i.e, Muhammad Khan (PW-2) about the re-action of the appellant after getting information regarding questioned sale which does not corroborate the evidence of petitioner is sufficient to non-suit the appellant with reference to performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat.
7. Learned trial court also concluded that appellant failed to prove the performance of Talb-i- Ishhad. In order to prove the said aspect Muhammad Akram Postman was produced as (PW-4) who though stated that he went to respondents in order to deliver the registered envelopes but he was unable to tell whether respondents received notice or not. The fact by itself is sufficient to disprove the factum of service of notice.
8. This court is conscious that there is mere denial on behalf of the respondents regarding receipt of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad but since it was the duty of the appellant to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad by producing convincing and corroborative piece of evidence who failed to produce evidence in a like manner, therefore, mere denial is sufficient to controvert and rebut the evidence of the appellant.
9. In view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned trial court on issue No,2.
10. Epitome of above discussion is that appeal being devoid of force is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
11. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly;