The petitioner , by means of this revision petition, has called-in-question the validity and legality of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below in their judgments & decrees dated 04.12.2012 and 15.10.2015, respectively , whereby the suit and appeal filed by the petitioner were dismissed, hence, this revision petition.
2. Irrespective of the fact that both the learned Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings of fact in non- suiting the petitioner , which, to me, call for no interference, I have noticed that the respondents/vendees denied the sending of notice to them in their written statement, which fact has frankly been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner . In this view of the matter , the presumption arising under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Ordinance, 1984 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, stands rebutted necessitating the production of Postman, to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad, as per ratio laid down by the Hon'b le Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others Vs Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), which is found missing hence, the result of the petition is obvious. As the pre-emptor has failed to produce the Postman for recording his evidence in order to prove the service of notice upon the vendees/respondents, who had denied the sending of notice, therefore, it is held that his alleged superior right of pre-emption stood extinguished due to deficiency in evidence to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the ratio decidendi by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in referred case law . Hence, this petition has no merit and hereby dismissed-in-limine.