1. ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.--- Through instant Revision Petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgments and decrees of learned Civil Judge-HI, Takht-e-Nasrati, Karak, dated 14.09.2012 and that of Additional District Judge, Takht-e-Nasrati, Karak dated 16.02.2013, whereby the former dismissed the pre-emption suit, while the latter dismissed the appeal of petitioner.
2. 2.Succinct facts giving rise to filing of the instant revision petition are that Raheem Shah, the plaintiff, 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 under mutation No.6534 attested on 23.05.2011.
3. 3.As per averments of the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff came to know about the suit sale on 07.06.2011 (Tuesday) at 0300 P.M, when he along with one Imranullah was present in his Hujra, situated in Banda, through Ghazi Nawab. He allegedly performed Talb-e-Muwathibat, there and then, in presence of witnesses. On 08.06.2011, in confirmation of the first Talb, the petitioner/plaintiff sent the vendees/ defendants notice Talb-e-Ish'had, which were duly attested by the two marginal witnesses.
4. 4.The averments of the plaint were controverted by defendants/ respondents in their 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 vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2012. The petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Takht-e-Nasrati, Karak, who vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal of petitioner, vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2013, hence, the instant revision petition.
5. 5.Arguments heard and record perused.
6. 6.It appears that to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat as well a Talb-e-Ish'had, plaintiff did not record his own statement before the court, rather statement of Ghazi Nawab son of petitioner Raheem Shah was recorded as his attorney. The attorney (PW-4), while recording his statement did not offer any disability of the plaintiff from appearance before the court to give evidence, except old age and sick, but has not produced any medical prescription, in this regard rather admitted in his statement recorded as PW-4 that his father came to Takht-e-Nasrati, on 08.06.2011 to scribe notice Talb-e-Ish'had. Section 14 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987, though provides exception, but that is not for making statement, but about making of demand, which is reproduced herein below:-- "14. Demand by the guardian or agent.--- Where a person is unable to make demands under section 13, his guardian or agent may make the required demands on his behalf."
7. The very language employed in section provides in unambiguous and unequivocal terms that demands may be made by the agent, where the pre-emptor himself is unable to make the same.
8. By this section firstly pre-emptor is bound to explain his inability and secondly it is demand which is to be made by agent and then be proved by the same person in the Court. It is nowhere provided by the law, that demand be made by the pre-emptor and it be proved by his attorney. Particularly Talb-eMuwathibat, being personal act of the pre-emptor is required to be proved by himself by making statement on oath and offering himself for cross-examination. If at all, the preemptor could not record his statement before the trial Court for any valid reason, he should have requested for recording his statement through commission within the meaning of Order XXVI, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. When neither the demand has been made by attorney, nor pre- emptor has shown his inability to appear before the court, it is safely concluded that pre-emptor has failed to prove performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, as required by law. For this view, I am fortified by the dictum laid down in Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq (2007 SCM R 957), which is as under:--- "The pre-emptor, no doubt could appoint an attorney to pursue the suit but Talb-e-Muwathibat being a personal act of the preemptor, is required to be proved by him through his own statement and an attorney may not be a substitute of the preemptor under the law, therefore, notwithstanding the provision of section 14 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 according to which if a person is unable to make demand under section 13 (ibid), his agent may make such demand on his behalf but the petitioner cannot get benefit of this exception firstly for the reason that lie has claimed performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in person and secondly, this exception appears to have been created to meet a situation in which either the pre-emptor is minor or is invalid or is not in a position in the ordinary circumstances to make Talb-e-Muwathibat himself and appear in Court in person."
7. It need no emphasis that for successful exercise of right of preemption, the proof of superior right of pre-emption, 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 petitioner has failed to prove Talb-eMuwathibat by appearing himself, hence, the petitioner/pre-emptor is not entitled for the decree as prayed for.
9. 8.Both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner by properly appreciating the evidence available on record and applying the law on the subject correctly. 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 can it upset the same, even if, on appreciation of evidence, a different view can be formed, unless these findings are shown to have been the outcome of a jurisdiction vested but not exercise or jurisdiction not vested, but exercise or one of material irregularity. I did not find any infirmity or misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments which may warrant interference of this Court in the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two Courts below. In this respect reliance is placed on "Muhammad Rashid Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique" (PLD 2002 SC 293) and "Muhammad Idrees and others v.
10. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2010 SCM R 95).
11. 9.This revision petition being without any substance, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.