Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, J. This revision petition is directed against the consolidated judgment dated 14.09.201 1 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal dismissed the appeal of petitioner as well as cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent against findings rendered on issues No.1 to 6 and maintained the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2010 rendered by the learned Civil Judge.
2. The record of the case has been examined with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, perusal whereof reveals that the respondent/vendee specifically denied the sending of notice to him in his written statement, therefore, production of Postman, to prove the factum of Talab-e-Ishha d as per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others Vs Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), was necessary which is found missing hence, the result of the petition is obvious. I have gone through the case law cited at bar by the learned counsel for petitioner reported in Hameedullah Khan and others vs. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon (2008 SCMR 1444) and Ghulam Abbas and another vs. Manzoor Ahmad and another (2008 SCMR 1366). In this regard, suffice it to say that the benefit as claimed by the petitioner granted in referred two pronouncements, cannot be bestowed to the present petitioner in presence of latest case-law, articulated in judgments reported in Allah Ditta's case (2013 SCMR 866) and Khan Afsar vs. Afsar Khan and others (2015 SCMR 311).
3. In view of the dictum laid down by the apex Court it is clear and obvious that the pre-emptor has no case, as he failed to produce the Postman for recording his evidence in order to prove the service of notice upon the vendee/respondent, who had denied the sending of notice in a specific manner , therefore, it is held that his alleged superior right of pre emption stood extinguished due to deficiency in evidence to prove the factum of Talab-e-Ishhad in accordance with ratio decidendi by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in referred case law. Hence, this petition has no merit and stands dismissed . No order as to costs.