CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---The file entails the facts that 52 Kanals 03 Marlas area vested to Noor Muhammad, the real uncle of the respondent/pre-emptor . The former vide mutation No.119 dated 22.01.2007 sold it to present petitioners/vendees in equal shares. The respondent/pre-emp tor pirated the said transaction through suit for possession asserting his superior pre-emptive right being Shafi Shareek and due performance of requisite demands. The petitioners/vendees mainly contested the suit on score of talbs, avowing that prior to settlement of transaction under pre-emption, a dispute regarding consolidation of certain land including suit area was in progress before Member , BoR and during its proceedings on 22.01.2007 , the petitioners/vendees (after maturing of sale vide mutation No.119) tabled application for their impleadment, copy whereof immediately delivered to the respondent/pre-emptor , thus by that time the transaction of sale under pre-emption came into latter's knowledge, who at the most then and there could pronounce mlb-i-muwathibat, if so intended to pre-empt the same, but having been deferred till 31.01.2007, it could not declare to be performed as per law hence suit was liable to be dismissed.
The learned Trial Court facing with divergent pleadings of the parties. materialized issues and while evaluating available evidence decreed the suit. The petitioners/vendees though preferred appeal, but without success being dismissed followed by this civil revision to throw challenge upon concurrent decrees dated 01.07.2009 and 19.03.201 1.
2. It is submitted by Messrs Mian Mush taq Mehdi Akhtar , Sardar Muhammad Asim Javed and Rana M. Ashraf Khan, Advocates, learned counsel for petitioners/vendees that pre-emptor being real nephew of the vendor was his family member and fully aware of sale under pre-emption from the day of its inception. It was next contended that sale matured vide subject mutation was specifically brought into notice of the pre-emptor on 22.01.2007 during court proceedings by submitting application (Exh.D2), but talb-i-muwathibat was not pronounced promptly and due to said lapse pre-emption decree could not be awarded. It was further submitted that copies of judicial record bear presumption of correctness and despite having not been rebutted, the learned Courts below while completely ignoring these important documents erred in law to decide the issue qua talbs in favour of respondent/pre-emptor , which findings being tainted with misreading/non-reading of evidence as well as suffering from jurisdictional defect cannot be sustained.
In contra, Messrs Humera Bashir Chaud hry, Sh. Naveed Shahryar , M. Shafique Ahmad and Zubera Bashir Ch., Advocates, learned counsel for respondent/pre-emptor argued that neither copy of the mutation was delivered to the pre-emptor nor an inference could be drawn that contents of application for impleadment were read over to the latter so as to allege that on 22.01.2007 the pre-empted sale transaction came into his knowledge; and that qualitative and quantitative evidence was produced to prove the superior right of pre-emption as well as due performance of requisite talbs by the plaintif f and both the Courts below perfectly passed the impugned decrees, which cannot be interfered with while invoking revisional jurisdiction.
3. Arguments considered and available record consulted.
4. Although the petitioners disputed the superior right of the pre-emptor in the written statement, but the latter successfully proved it by bringing on record relevant revenue entries, whereas the petitioners could not rebut those as per their defence so asserted.
There left the contest with regard to fulfilm ent of requisite demands. The basic onus probandi qua relevant issue in this regard was upon respondent/pre-emptor . Let us have a glance at the contents of plaint and written statement submitted on behalf of the parties to deter mine the pivotal question. As per para-4 of the plaint, the respondent/pre- emptor took the stance that sale was kept secret, which for the first time came into his knowledge on 31.01.2007 through Shaukat Ali (PW5) in presence of Ehsan Ali (PW4) and in said majlis the declaration of first demand was pronounced. The petitioners/ vendees reprobated the said fact while specifically averring in parallel part of their written statement that on 22.01.2007, application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code, 1908 was submitted by them before the learned Member , BoR in RoR No.1608-2005, wherein specifically the sale effected through mutation No.119 was made known to the respondent/pre-emptor , but talb-i-muwathibat was not pronounced promptly , thus its delay for certain- days was fatal. The respondent/pre-emptor (PW3), firstly had a chance to rebut said reply of para No.4 through his statement-in-chief, but he totally remained mum to that effect. Even, in his cross- examination, he did not specifically deny the pendency of the lis before BoR, who initially showed his ignorance qua said proceedings, but at subseque nt stage admitted that in said /is he as well as his father was being represented by Muhammad Khan Ranjha, Advocate. Anyhow , the petitioners/vendees to prove their stance tendered certified copy of RoR (Exh.D1), which depicted that it was preferred by two brothers Sardara and Muhammad sons of Mirza against father of the pre-emptor as well as Noor Muhammad/vendor . By exhibiting copy of inheritance mutation (Exh.D7), it stood established that father of pre-emptor died during pendency of RoR and thereafter said lis was pursued by the pre-emptor along with other LRs. The copy of application under Order I, Rule 10 of Code ibid (Exh.D2) submitted on 22.01.2007 before the learned Member contained petitioners' stance that they by purchasing the entire holdings of Noor Muhammad through mutation No.119 had stepped into his shoes and sought for their impleadment in the said lis. The next document was copy of interlocutory order dated 22.01.2007 (Exh.D3) passed by learned Member seized of RoR, which being very relevant, in verbatim, is reproduced hereunder:- {{URDU TEXT}} The moment, these documents were brought on record, the vendees succeeded to prove that at least on 22.01.2007 the sale under pre- emption was disclosed during open Court proceedings. The delivery of copy of application and its endorsement in interlo cutory order was a clear notice to the pre-emptor , thus onus once again shifted towards him to rebut it, but surprisingly neither he nor his counsel, to whom copy of Exh.D2 was handed over, appeared in the witness-box despite that they had the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. The under discussion documents being part of judicial proceedings attained presumption of regularity and correctness under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984, which went unrebutte d and un-objected. The non- examination of rebuttal evidence compelled the Court to draw hostile inference that had they appeared might have admitted that sale was made known to them on 22.01.2007 by delivering copy of (Exh.D2). Therefore, the defence of the petitioners/ vendees unequivocally proved that at least on 22.01.2007, the pre-emptor was apprised of sale under pre-emption reflected in mutation No.119 and performance of talb-e-muwathibat at subsequent stage on 31.01.2007 was not legally justified. The Courts below were not within its discretion to ignore the very relevant and important documents duly tendered in evidence by the vendees even without any objection on the part of the pre- emptor .
5. As discussed earlier , the respondent/ pre-emptor succeeded to prove his preferential pre-emptive right being Shafi Shareek, which alone was not enough to equip him with the decree prayed for, rather he was under obligation to cross the barrier that prior to institution of suit, both the requisite demands were duly performed. Through catena of judgments, the apex Court already held time and again that the delay in perfo rmance of talb-e-muwathibat is always fatal for the pre-emptor , who is obliged to pronounce it the moment trans action came to his knowledge, which, in fact, is called jumping demand.
The promptness is the beauty and importance of that very talb. Thus, sine qua non for the pre-emptor of each case to pronounce talb-i-muwathibat immediately upon receiving information of sale irrespective of the fact that conditions laid down for completion of said transaction have been fulfilled. This is because the inflexible nature of the demand of said talb does not permit the pre-emptor to cause any delay to perform it even if he is not certain that sale has been completed in all respects. The law settled by the august Supreme Court so far, binds the pre- emptor to perform talb-i-muwathibat spontaneously regardless of the credibility of the information. See Muhammad Nazeef Khan v. Gulbat Khan (2012 SCMR 235) and Mst. Rooh Afza v. Aurangzeh and others (2015 SCMR 92), but in this case it stood fully proved that sale under pre-emption was already known to the pre-emptor or at least apprised to him on 22.01.2007 through Exhs.. D1 to 3, but the pronouncement of first demand was delayed for clear nine days while introducing the story regarding its performance on 31.01.2007, which was mere concoction. Therefore, on the said sole score, the suit of the respondent/pre-emptor bounds to fail.
6. The emphasis of learned counsel for the respondent/pre-emptor that the concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction provided under section 115 of Code ibid is not tenable as both the judgments and decrees having been found to be result of misreading/non-reading of evidence as well as non-adherence to the law laid down in this behalf by the superior Courts are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is correct that normally this Court does not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below , but here the impugned decrees, being classic example of wrong exercise of jurisdiction and clearly tainted with misreading and non-reading of evidence besides patent violation of the law floating on its surface cannot be sustained. On being faced with such situation, this Court cannot shut its eyes and is always under obligation to rectify the error by interference in such like illegal findings. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001 ) Mushtari Khan v.
Jehangir Khan (2006 SCMR 1238 ), Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza v. Member Judicial BoR and others (2014 SCMR 914 ) and Nazim-ud-Din and others v . Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24 ).
7. For the reasons recorded here inabove , this civil revision is allowed, impugned decrees passed by the learned lower fora are hereby set aside and the suit of respondent/pre-emptor is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.