' Through this civil revision the petitionerr/defendant has challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 04.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff was accepted, by way of which, the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 18.04.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala dismissing the suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent/plaintiff, were set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that on 20.04.1998 the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for pre- emption to pre-empt the sale of land in favour of vendee-defendant through registered sale-deed dated 14.01.1998. The defendant was proceeded against ex-parte. The plaintiff produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his versions. After the completion of trial vide ex-parte judgment '& decree dated 18.04.2006 suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned first appellate Court, which was accepted vide ex-parte judgment and decfee dated 04.10.2006 and suit was decreed ex-parte. Hence, this civil revision by the petitioner/ defendant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant argues that the findings of learned trial Court are in accordance with law as well as the evidence available on the file, as the plaintiff miserably failed to prove all the Talbs in accordance with law but the learned first appellate Court without any justifiable reasons erred in law while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, prays for acceptance of this civil revision.
4. The respondent/plaintiff has been proceeded against expatriate vide order dated 29.09.2015.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and also gone through the evidence minutely with his able assistance.
6. I have noticed that in Para 4 of the plaint specific place of making Talb-e-Muwathibat has not been mentioned. The plaintiff when appeared as his own witness as PW-1 has also not stated the specific place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. Same is the position of PW-2. Khalil-ur- Rehman, who is the informer, appeased as PW-3, stated that on 06.04.1998 at about 4:00 a.m. He went to the plaintiff in his house where Tariq Mehmood was present, he informed the plaintiff about the impugned sale of land, then we all the three went to the defendant and asked him to hand over the suit property after receiving the money and the defendant denied to hand over the suit property. From the statement of PW-3 it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has not announced the superior right of pre-emption. Therefore, Talb-e-Muwathibat has not been proved in accordance with law. Furthermore, the postman has not been produced to prove the service of notice of Talb- e-Ishhad or refusal from receiving the same by the vendee-defendant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff/ respondent miserably failed to prove all the Talabs in accordance with law laid down in the judgments 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) 2011 SCM R 762 (Bashir Ahmad vs. Ghulam Rasool, 2007 SCM R 1105) (Muhammad Bashir and others vs. Abbas A.I Shah and 2013 SCM R 866 (Allah Ditta through L.Rs. And others Vs. Muhammad Anar)",
7. In view of the above, the findings recorded by learned first appellate Court are not sustainable under the law. Therefore, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned ex-parte judgment & decree dated 04.10.2006 passed by the learned first appellate Court are set aside. The result is that the suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff/respondent shall stand dismissed.