' Brief facts leading to this petition are that Moosa, predecessor-in interest of the petitioners, filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the suit property. Written statement on behalf of the respondents was filed on 31-3-1993, wherein the averments in the plaint were controverted. Some preliminary objections were also raised therein. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the description of the land in suit given in the plaint is incorrect, if so; its effect? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to bring the instant suit? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is based on mala fide and the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD
(5) Whether the sale price of the suit land was fixed at Rs,2,00,000 in good faith and actually paid?
OPD
(6) If above issue No,5 is not proved then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale in question? OP Parties.
(7) Whether the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of Talabs in accordance with law? OPP
(8) Whether the plaintiff has got better right qua the defendants to preempt the sale in question?
OPP
(9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession through preemption prayed for? OPP
(10) Relief.
2. Issue No,2 was not pressed. Issues Nos.1 and 3 were answered in the affirmative. Issue No,4 was decided against the defendants. Issue No,5 was decided in favour of the defendants. While deciding issue No,6, the learned trial Court held that the market value of the property in dispute was the same as mentioned in Mutation No,1562 dated 30-11-1992. Issue No,8 was decided in favour of the plaintiff whereas issue No,7 was decided against him. Consequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners successfully proved Talabs but the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence in this respect. It did not decide the matter issue wise and as such, the mandatory provisions of Order 20, rule 5, C.P.C. Were not complied with. It was further submitted that the judgment of the learned appellate Court did not fulfill the requirement of Order 41, rule 31, C.P.C.
4. The learned trial Court returned its findings on issues Nos.1 and 3 in a slipshod manner. It was proper that these issues should have been decided independently and without any reference to issue No,7. However, I am of the opinion that the decision on the said issues in the like manner has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs. It is, therefore, not necessary to remand the case.
5. Even if the material contradictions in the evidence of the petitioners referred to by the two Courts below are kept aside, this revision can be dismissed on the sole ground that at the time of invocation of second Talab i.e. Talab-e-Ishhad, reference was not made to Talab-e-Mawasbat.
Reliance in this respect can be placed on Muhammad Lokman Mondal v. Amir Ali Mondal .PLD 1969 Dacca 64, wherein it was observed: "In the present case, the plaintiffs have neither claimed nor adduced evidence to the effect that at the time of making the second demand, a reference was made to the first demand. That being so, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim pre-emption and the learned Courts below erred in law in not directing their attention to this question."
' This principle was affirmed in Anwar All v. Shah Nawaz and others PLD 1989 Kar. 246 and Muhammad Ismail Qureshi v. Government of N.-W.F.P. PLJ 1992 FSC 53 wherein Hussain Baldish v.
Mir Muhammad PLD 1985 Kar. 161 was differed and the earlier law laid down by the Calcutta High Court (FB) and the High Court of Sindh was approved.
6. It may be mentioned here that the notices allegedly sent to the respondents were neither proved nor tendered in evidence.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, this petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.