' This revision petition arises out of a suit for possession through preemption filed by the petitioner on 8-3-1988 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chunian in respect of the land measuring 147 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Talwandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 11-5-1992. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 30-7-1992.
2. I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at considerable length. The two Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner had failed to prove Talab-e-Ishhad. The petitioner's learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the Courts below in respect of their findings qua Talab-e-Ishhad. I have also gone through the petitioner's evidence with the help of the petitioner's learned counsel. While appearing as P.W.1 Shahamat petitioner stated that on coming to know about the sale of the disputed land he went to the respondents after 2/3 days alongwith 4/5 persons including Jabar Khan P.W.2, Samun Khan P.W.3, Ali Muhammad P.W.4 and Haji Ajab Khan, etc. He claimed that all of them had gone to Pernawan at the house of Siddique father, of respondents Nos.1 and 2. He further claimed that the respondents had refused to accept the demand made by him. However, he was contradicted by his own witness Jabar Khan P.W.2 who clearly stated that when he alongwith others went to the house of Aslam respondent No,2 he found his father Siddique in the house. He further stated that both the respondents were not in the house and that the petitioner had offered to the respondent's father to get the sale-price and transfer the suit land in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that he had made the offer to the respondents is belied by his own witness. For the same reason, the claim of Samun Khan P.W.3 and All Muhammad P.W.4 that they as well as the petitioner had met the respondents in the house cannot be accepted.
' For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.