MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.--- The suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.04.201 1 and appeal whereof filed by the respondent/vendee was allowed by the learned first Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.06.201 1, in consequence whereof decree of the learned trial Court was set-aside and suit was dismissed; hence this revision petition.
2. Suit for possession through pre-emption regarding the land measuring 23-Kanals 16-Marlas, purchased by the respondent for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- vide mutation No.1140 dated 15.12.2006, instituted by the petitioner claiming his preferential right over the vendee, was contested by the respondent/vendee/defendant by way of filing written statement. Accordingly , issues were framed and parties were allowed to lead their evidence, where-after the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.04.201 1 decreed petitioner's suit, however , appeal preferred by the respondent/vendee/defendant was accepted by the learned first appellate Court which set-aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court through judgment dated 23.06.201 1 culminating in dismissal of suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on last date of hearing i.e. 24.05.2018, when confronted about missing of the testimony of the postman which was necessary to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad and this deficiency in his evidence alone is sufficient to dismiss the suit in view of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases reported as Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abba s Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 1105) and Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others Vs Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), he obtained a short date to advance his arguments in this regard.
Today , he pointed-out that the written statement of the respondent/defendant/vendee qua the query raised i.e. the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad was silent as no specific plea regarding denial of issuance or service of notice has been alleged and his evasive denial in respect of whole sentence is no denial in the eye of law. Moreover , the respondent, when appeared in the witness box, in his testimony admitted receiving of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad : In such eventuality , it was not mandatory for the petitioner/plaintif f to produce the postman for recording has testimony with regard to ef fectiveness of notice of TaIb-i-Ishad .
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
5. There. is no substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas'Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 1105) and Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others Vs Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) has already held that the pre-emptor must prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad by producing affirmative evidence which is always recorded before the evidence of a defendant. Even otherwise proving of Talbs is mandatory and no question does arise of making a specific plea vis-a-vis its ef fectiveness by the defendant by producing af firmative evidence.
Besides . this, examining of record further reveals that the petitioner/plaintif f took a specific plea in his plaint that the respondent/defendant/vendee had refused to receive notice of Talh-i-Ishhad , whereas the sealed envelope dispatched to the respondent/vendee at his address received back unnerved had not been produced in the Court rather photocopy of notice of Talb-i-lshhad , envelope alongwith acknowledgement due and receipt of Post Office were alleged to have been attached with the plaint, whereas neither the original sealed envelope alongwith acknowledgement due were produced in evidence nor the same had been exhib ited reflecting from record. Due course in case of return of un-served notice of Talb-i-Ishhad is that the sealed envelope alongwith acknowledgement due containing report of refusal or otherwise of Postman received back by the plaintif f must be produced in the Court and the Court in presence of the parties by de-sealing the envelope not only exhibits the original notice of Talb-i-Ishhad but also the acknowledgement due and envelope should always be exhibited to confirm that the envelope contains the same notice of Talb-i-lshhad which was sent to the defendant/vendee.
The above noted deficiency in the evidence sufficiently established that the petitioner/plaintif f failed to discharge his mandatory obligation in accordance with law .
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and as such it stands dismissed. No order as to costs.