ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.- Through instant Revision Petition, the petitioner/ plaintiff has assailed the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge-VI, Lakki Marwat dated 18.12.2010 and that of Additional District Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat dated 16.11.2012, whereby the former dismissed the suit of petitioner/plaintiff, while the latter upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2. Succinct facts giving rise to filing of the instant revision petition are that Qutab-ud -din, the plaintif f, now petitioner instituted a suit for possession through exercise of right of pre-emption against the respondents/ defendants, who are vendees of the suit land vide muta tion No. 115 and 1116 dated 17.03.2008, on the sale consideration of Rs.30500/-, but to defeat the pre-emption right of plaintif f/ petitioner a fancy amount of Rs.86000/-was entered.
3. As per averments of the plaint, the petitioner/plaintif f came to know about the suit sale on 10.06.2008 at Deger Vela at his baithak , situated in village Michan Khel, Lakki Marwat through Noor Sherin in presence of Amir Nawaz.
He performed Talb-e-Muwathibat, there and then, in presence of above named witnesses. Later , on 18.06.2008, in confirmation of the first Talb, the petitioner/plaintif f sent to the vendees/ defendants notices Talb-e-Ish'had, which were duly attested by the two marginal witnesses. He averred in his plaint that he is entitled to perform exercise of right of pre-emption on all the three grounds available under the law .
4. The averments of the plaint were controverted by defendant/respondent in his written statement raising therein various objections legal as well as factual. The controversial pleadings of the parties resulted into framing of issues. Pro and contra evidence were recorded. On conclusion of trial learned trial court, dismissed the suit of petitioner/ plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2010. Not contented with the judgment and decree of learned trial court, the petitioner/ plaintiff assailed the same through appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat, who after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.11.2012, hence, the instant revision petition.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is admitted position that defendant No.1 is co-sharer in suit property , having equal rights of pre-emption, while rest of the defendants have no superior right, but the pre-emptor is required not only to have superior right of pre- emption, but also to prove performance of Talab-e-Muwathibat as well as Talab e-Ish'had, in accordance with law. If any one of these legal requirements is lacking the pre-emptor would be non-suited. In the instant case, though petitioner has mentioned date, time and place of performance of Talab-e-Muwathib at in his plaint and he has also re iterated the same facts in his statement on oath before the court, but his witnesses, informer Noor Sherin (PW-4) and Amir Nawaz, mentioned /disclosed the time of performance of Talab-e-Muwat hibat, in their Court statements, as Pesheen Vela. By now, it is settled law, as held in Mian Pir Muhammad' s case (PLD 2007 SC 302) by the august Supreme Court, that it is not only legal requirement to mention details of date, time and place in the plaint, but also imperative to prove the same through evidence. By mentioning these details in the plaint, the plaintiff is not absolved from his duty to prove performance of Talab-e Muwathibat. Rather the facts alleged in the pleadings are required to be proved through cogent, coherent and trustworthy evidence. Because mere pleadings can never attain the status of evidence, unless the same are proven through evidence. It is the case of petitioner/ plaintiff that he was informed by Noor Sherin (PW-4) in the presence of Amir Nawaz (PW-5) on 10.06.2008, at Deger Vela, in his Baithak, but both, the informer and his companion, disclosed the time of information and performance of Talab-e-Muwathibat in their statements on oath before the Court, as Pesheen Vela, which is different from Deger Vela, which is not a minor discrepancy rather fatal to the case of petitioner/ plaintiff. In view of this infirmity in the evidence of plaintif f, it has rightly been concluded by both the Courts below that plaintif f has failed to prove performance of Talab-e-Muwathibat.
7. Apart from the above, petitioner/plai ntiff produced Attaullah Khan Patwari Halqa as Pw-2, who in cross examination stated that, "he bring with him Roznamcha where at S.No.252 dated 01.04.2008, it is mentioned that "Sher Din son of Qutab Din received copy of Fard Jamabandi 2005-06 of Khata No.50 Khatoni No. 88 to 90, which is Ex:PW-2/D-1." Which shows the impugned mutation was registered on 17.03.2008, before taking copies of the same by the son of petitioner/ plaintiff. Meaning thereby, that the petitioner was in prior knowledge of the alleged date of sale before exercising right of Talb-e-Muwathibat i.e. 10.06.2008 entered in the notice of Talb-e-Ish'had. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner/ plaintiff to perform Talb-e-Muwathibat on 01.04.2008, when he got information, about the sale, hence, he has extinguished his right of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
8. It is requirement of law under section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, that after making Talb-e- Muwathibat intending pre-emptor shall affirm his intention not only in pleading but also has to prove this fact through producing evidence. In the instant case pre-emptor has not complied with this legal requirement in accordance with law, as the petitioner/ plaintiff (PW-3), Qutqab-Din in cross-examination stated that he has only asked the advocate for scribing notice, with respect to land purchased by respondents/ defendants. Meaning thereby, that the petitioner/ plaintiff has not provided all the details to Advocate, for scribing notice Talb-e-Ish'had , hence, the story in the notice Talb-e-Ish'had with regard to information, date, time and place of Talb-e Muwathibat has been designed by the scriber of the notice. Neither the attesting witnesses are aware about the contents of notice not it was read over to them, whereas it is incumbent upon the witnesses to know about contents of notice, but petitioner/ plaintiff failed to prove the same. In this respect verdict laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in case titled "Muhammad Zahid Vs Dr. Muhammad Ali", (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 488), worth perusal, wherein it is held that: "7. The respondent stated in his evidence recorded in the Court that he signed and sent notice to the vendee but he did not state anywhere that he confirmed his intention to exercise his right of pre emption. Talb-i-lshhad which, in fact, is confirmation of intention to exercise a right of pre-emption cannot be held to have been established by mere signing and sending of notice. The witnesses examined in the Court, too, did not state anything regarding confirmation of such intention."
9. The respondents / defendants have denied the receipt of notice Talb-e-Ish'had in written statement as well as in court on oath. In such a situation the petitioner/ plaintiff was under legal obligation to produce post man, to prove service of notice Talb-e-Ish'had, as it is held by the apex Court in cases titled "Muhammad Bashir and others Vs Abbas Ali Shah" (2007 SCMR 1105) and "Basheer Ahmed Vs Ghulam Rasool" (2011 SCMR 762). In the instant case, petitioner/ plaintiff produced one Muhammad Ismail Khan clerk PO, district complex Lakki Marwat, as PW-1, who in cross examination stated that registered envelops were sent by his post office, but he did not state that he delivered the same to the respondents/ defendants. The petitioner/ plaintif f has not produced the postman in order to prove delivery of registered envelops, hence, he has failed to prove delivery of notices Talb-e-Ish'had in accordance with law .
10. It needs no emphasis that for successful exercise of right of pre-emption, the proof of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and then Talb-e Ish'had, in their respective chronological order, is essential. Any deficiency in these legal requirements will render a pre-emption suit liable to an outright dismissal. As in the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb e-Ish'had, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.
11. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited in which the court cannot set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same, unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. No such infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned judgments, which may warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In this regard reference can be made to case titled " Muhammad Rashid Ahmad VS. Muhammad Saddique" (PLD 2002 SC 293) and " Muhammad Idrees and others VS. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2010 SCMR 05).
12. In light of the above, the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff is not sustainable. The learned both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of petitioner /plaintiff by rightly relying on the well settled principle laid down by the apex Court. Hence, this petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as costs.