The concurrent judgments of the two Courts below , whereby suit for possession through pre-emption as well as appeal of the petitioner unanimously dismissed, are the subject of petition in hand.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. In fact, the transaction reflected in sale-deed dated 24.02.2010 was pirated by the petitioner through suit asserting his superior right and performan ce of requisite talbs. Ex-fade , in para-3 of the plaint of his suit, it was the stance of the petitioner that on 17.06.2010 at 6.00 P.M., he in his haveli was sitting with his brother , Farrukh Humayun when Muhammad Khalid (PW6) appeared there and on his information about the sale, the first demand was fulfilled. It was sine qua non for the petitioner/pre-emptor to establish constitution of majlis as well as pronouncement of the talb-i-muwathibat as pleaded in said para of the plaint. Although he being PW.4 narrated the same stance that he along with his brothe r was sitting in his haveli at 6.00 P.M. when Muhammad Khalid appeared there and communicated the sale but his brother/participant of the majlis (PW5) did not disclose the time of performance of first demand in his statement-in-chief. No doubt, he tried to cover this aspect in his cross- examination, but Muhammad Khalid, the informer (PW6) did not disclose the presence of Farrukh Humayun in the majlis through his statement-in-chief. The performance of talb-e-muwathibat is not a mere technicality viz-a-viz the superior right of pre-emption. The law is now clear that the very right of the pre-emption is not activated unless talb- e-muwathibat is performed. It should not be dubbed as a mere technicality , but at times it acquires such dimension that it becomes more important than the superior right because it essentially is a sine qua non of the right of the pre-emption as has been held in a case reported as Fazal Din through L.Rs. us. Muhammad Inayat through L.Rs (2007 SCMR 1). The learned Courts below minutely thrashed the evidence of the pre-emptor while capturing salient variations and major contradictions in the statements of PWs and perfectly rendered negative findings on pivotal issue qua talbs.
4. Mr. Ali Hussain Mohsin, Advocate for the petitioner although argued the case to the best of his ability , but was not able to persuade that either the learned lower fora committed material irregularity/patent illegality or that its unanimous findings were suffering from jurisdictional defect. He also failed to conv ince that the impugned decrees were tainted with misreading or non-rea ding, of evidence, thus no case of interference is made out. This Civil Revision being devoid of any merit and force is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs