Impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.07.201 1 delivered by the learned Trial Court, whereby suit for possession on the basis of pre-emption, instituted by the petitioner(s) was dismissed as well as judgment and decree dated 20.01.201 1 passed by the learned Appellate Court, through which appeal was dismissed.
2. Heard.
3. Perusal of the record goes to evince that the Petitioner/plaintif f has failed to prove performance of talb-e- muwathibat as per mandate of law because mere mentioning of date, time and place of making such talb in the plaint is not sufficient rather the same has to be proved through unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence, which is lacking in this case, as has been discussed and appreciated by the learned Courts below , because the petitioner could not name the witnesses in plaint in whose presence he made talb-e-muwathibat. Moreover , the service of addressee has also not been proved through convincing and unimpeachable evidence as the postman could not bring record and even the A.D. has not been exhibited. As such the instant case is against the ratio of the celebrated judgment reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302), Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), Dr. Pir Muhammad, Khan v. Khuda Bukhsh and others (2015 SCMR 1243 ), Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 721), Muhammad Apaidullah v. Ijaz Ahmed (2015 SCMR 394), Bashir Ahmed v. Ghulam Rasool (2010 SCJ 643), Israr Ahmed and 3 others v.
Haji Muhammad and another (2009 Law Notes 377) and Subhanuddin and others v. Pir Ghulam (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 69). Thus, the learned Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner and have not committed any illegality or irregularity , impugned judgments and decrees do not need to be interfered with.
4. Pursuant to above while placing reliance on the judgments supra as well Muham mad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469 ) and Cantonment Board through executive Officer, Cantt, Board Rawalpindi v.- Iklaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), the civil revision in hand, being devoid of any force and substance, stands dismissed wits no order as to the costs.