Being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below in their judgments & decrees dated 03.02.201 1 and 02.11.2012, respectively , whereby petitioner 's suit and appeal were dismissed, he has filed this revision petition, inter alia, on the ground that while deciding the appeal, preferred by the petitioner , the learned first Appellate Court has not adverted to the other issues except the issue of Talbs and that too with regard to Talb-i-Ishhad, therefore, the judgment impugned does not coform to the definition of a judgment in the eye of law; hence, the case may be remanded for rewriting of judgment.
2. Irrespective of the fact that both the learned Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings of fact in non- suiting the petitioner , which, to me, call for no interference, I have noticed that the respondents/vendees denied the sending of notice to them in their written statement. In this view of the matter , the presumption arising under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Ordinance, 1984 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, stands rebutted necessitating the production of Postman, to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad, as per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Allah Ditta through L.Rs and others Vs Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), which is found missing hence, the result of the petition is obvious.
3. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to observe that when the very basis of a building is weedy , then the whole edifice built thereon is likely to tumble down like house of cards. The learned first Appellate Court taking the issue touching roots of the case, opted to decide the same first and in doing so, he has not committed any illegality as said finding on particular issue is considered sufficient for decision of the appeal, therefore, there arises no occasion to remit the case to the learned first Appellate Court for rewriting of judgment.
4. As the pre-emptor has failed to produce the Postman for recording his evidence in order to prove the service of notice upon the vendees/respondents, who had denied the sending of notice, therefore, it is held that his alleged superior right of pre-emption stood extinguished due to deficiency in evidence to prove the factum of Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the ratio decidend by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in referred case law. Hence, this petition has no merit and hereby dismissed in-limine.