' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---Through this civil revision, petitioner has challenged the impugned judgments and decree dated 15-3-2005 passed by Additional District Judge and 02-11-2004 passed by Civil Judge, Tala Gang, respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondents claiming his superior right of pre-emption on the basis of his land in the Ithewat, his other land being adjacent to the suit property and as a co-sharer. The suit was filed on 04-05- 1999. It was averred that respondent purchased 2-Kanals of land bearing Khasra No,1502, Khewat No,300 situated in village Bhagtal, Tehsil Tala Gang, District Chakwal through mutation No,990 dated 083-1999 for a sale consideration of Rs,10,000/-. Petitioner got knowledge of sale of the suit property on 15-4-1999 at 10:00 a.m. Through Muhammad Arsal Khan (informer) while he was in his house situated at village Bhagtal he immediately announced his superior right of pre-emption being Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar in the presence of Muhammad Arsal Khan and Mushtaq Ahmad sons of Mal Khan. On 16-4-1999, petitioner got written notice in the presence of two truthful witnesses afore- referred claiming superior right of pre-emption. He was in need of property and payment of actual amount shall be made to the respondents. Notice was sent by registered post A.D. On noncompliance by the respondents, petitioner exercised his right of Talb-i-Khusumat as required under Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 by filing a suit.
3. Respondents filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the plaint. Issues were framed and both parties produced oral and documentary evidence. Petitioner produced PW- 1 (Inayat Shabbir postman), himself appeared as PW-2, PW-3 Muhammad Arsal Khan and PW-4 Mushtaq Ahmad were produced besides tendering documentary evidence Exh.P-1 to P40.
Respondent No,1 Yar Muhammad appeared as DW-1.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit as petitioner failed to perform Talbs vide judgment and decree dated 02-11-2004. The petitioner impugned the said judgment and decree through appeal which was also 'dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15-03-2005.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in written statement, petitioner's' superior right being Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar was not specifically denied. Moreover, petitioner's property being in the same Khewat and adjacent to the suit property his right being superior was entitled to pre-emption. On gaining knowledge, petitioner immediately pronounced his intention as a pre-emptor in the presence of two truthful witnesses PW-3 and PW-4. Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-2 were duly thumbed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and their uncle, thereby fulfilling the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad. Postman PW-1 in his statement also deposed about delivery. In terms of section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the service stood effected. Reliance was placed on PLD 2002 Lahore 280 Khalid Hussain through Aftab Hussain and 2 others and 1985 CLC 1513.
' The production of acknowledgement due receipt fulfills the requirement of transmission of notice and thumb impressions of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and of their uncle reveals that service as required under Section 13(2) of the Act ibid stood effected and proved. It was further contended that PW-3 Arsal Khan was an illiterate person, evidence was recorded after a lapse of five years from date of institution of the suit so minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses are to be ignored and evidence has to be read and conclusions arrived by reading the evidence in totality. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported as 2004 SCMR 1580 Allah Bukhsh and another v. Falak Sher and 2004 SCMR 1719 Haji Feroz Khan and another v. Amir Hussain through L.Rs, and others. Both Courts committed material irregularity by basing findings on minor contradictions in the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and non-suited the petitioner. The material evidence available was Mis-appreciated, the case was liable to be remanded.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argued that time, date and place of notice was not proved. Neither was the scriber of the notice produced as a witness. During cross-examination of DW-1, no question was put to him regarding thumb impression allegedly of predecessor-in- interest of the respondents and of their uncle. PW-4 during cross- examination admitted that petitioner was closely related to PW-3 and PW-4 and land of the respondents was also adjacent to that of suit land. It was also in Para 4 of the written statement that the respondents were Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar, therefore, they were entitled to pre-emption under Section 6 of the Act ibid. Reliance was placed on the cases reported as 2013 SCMR 721 Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmad, 2013 YLR 2201 Muhammad Ilyas Naveed and another v. Allah Ditta 2006 CLC 1349 Allah Ditta and 2 other v. Raees and 3 others.
7. Argument heard record perused.
8. In paragraph 1 of the plaint it is averred that petitioner gained knowledge of sale of suit property at 10:00 a.m. On 15-4-1999 through Muhammad Arsal Khan PW-3, whereas PW-3 during cross- examination stated that on 15-4-1999 at 8:00 a.m. He went to the shop of Resham Khan who told him about sale of the suit property and after 5 to 10 minutes he left for petitioner's house which was again at a distance of 5 to 10 minutes and on reaching petitioner's house informed him about sale of the suit property, therefore, information was passed on to the petitioner at around 8:20 a.m. In the morning, whereas according to PW-3 and PW-4 the time conveyed was 10:00 a.m. Intention to pre-empt made at 10:00 a.m. Cannot be termed as a jumping demand. As reported in 2006 CLC 79 "laxity in performance of such Talb-e-Muwathibat which being a jumping demand would be seen with rigor". The glaring contradictions/discrepancies in respect of time, date and place in testimony of petitioner's witnesses establish that Talb-i-Muwathibat was not performed in accordance with law.
9. Postman produced as PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that Exh.P-1 and P-2 were not thumbed in his presence. Exh.P-1 mentions the date as 1999, whereas he took charge in the said post office in November, 2001, his depositions that being not maker of receipt and not a witness to thumb rest of his depositions hate no evidentiary value. The delivery of notice, its receipt and acknowledgment due in the absence of the postman have not been proved. Requirements are lacking for performance of Talb-i-Ishhad in the light of judgment reported as 2013 SCMR 866 Allah Ditta through L.Rs, and others v. Muhammad Anar, 2007 SCMR 1105 Muhammad Bashir and others v.
Abbas Ali Shah, 2013 YLR 2201 Muhammad Ilyas Naveed and another v. Allah Ditta, 2006 CLC 1349 Allah Ditta and 2 others v. Raees and 3 others.
10. Both Courts below after sifting oral as well as documentary evidence rightly concluded that petitioner failed to fulfill the performance of Talbs as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act ibid in order to succeed as a pre-emptor. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. This Civil Revision being devoid of merits is dismissed.