1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court dated 19-2-1994 whereby Civil Revision Application No, 279 of 1992 filed by the petitioner against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was maintained. The respondent instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 1 Kanal and 18 Marlas which was allegedly gifted to the petitioner by the owner. It was alleged in the suit instituted by the respondent that the transaction described as gift was in fact a sale in favour of the petitioner which the respondent came to know on 3-1-1988 and he immediately made 'Talb-in- Muwathibar' which was followed by 'Talb-e-Ishhad' through a notice dated 4-1-1988 followed by 'Talb-e-Khusumar'. Having failed to get any response from the petitioner to the Talab made by the respondent a civil suit was instituted claiming right of pre-emption in the land sold to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed by a short order by the Senior Civil Judge on the ground that the respondent failed to make the Talabs as required under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act.
2. On appeal the order of Senior Civil Judge was set aside by the District Judge, Karak who remanded the case after setting aside the order dated 25-6-1989. After remand of the case issues were framed in the case and after recording evidence of the parties on the issues the trial Court decreed the suit on 7-3-1992. On appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the District Judge vide judgment dated 1-6-1992. A further revision against the order of District Judge before the High Court failed as the revision was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the Courts below have not taken into consideration that 'Talb-e-Muwathibat' was not made by the plaintiff/respondent in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. It is also contended by the learned counsel that 'Talb-i-Ishhad' which the plaintiff claimed was made on 4-1-1988, was not at all proved in accordance with the evidence on record. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was beyond time as the gift in favour of the petitioner was completed in the year 1986 While the suit was filed in the year 1988. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel that the plaintiff/respondent at the time he instituted suit was not the owner of the contiguous land and as such he had no right of preemption. All the above contentions were repelled by the learned Chief Justice in the impugned judgment as follows:-- "3. As far the issue of making Talabs is concerned the Courts below believed into the evidence of Muhammad Aslam plaintiff/respondent that he had learnt of the transaction in his village on 3-1- 1988 and that he made 'Talab-e-Muwathibar there and then and afterwards made 'Talb-e-Ishhad' through notice on the following day, that is, 4-11988. The notice of 'Talb-e-Ishhad' has been got proved from the statements of Gul Sahib Khan (P.W. 5) and Sher Azal (P.W.6). In the context the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner referred to the statement of P.W.4 Mian Murid Yunis the alleged donor who admitted it correct that the plaintiff-respondent had the knowledge of the transaction some nine months or one year prior to the attestation of the disputed mutation but he was not prepared to purchase the suit land. This part of the statement reporting the knowledge of the preemptor nine months or a year prior to the attestation of mutation in dispute would not stand to reason as a cause of action for the exercise of right of pre-emption, was to arise from the date of attestation of the mutation and not from the same transaction negotiated some nine months or a year prior to the attestation of mutation. Moreover, this part of the statement has been made by P.W. 4 who was primarily produced as a witness of the kind of the transaction and the said statement would not determine the issue either way and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we would believe the plaintiff-respondent's contention contained in the pleadings as well in the evidence that he got knowledge of the transaction on 3-1-1988 and made 'Talb-e- Muwathibat' there and then and made 'Talb-e-Ishhad' on 4-1-1988, all in time. In the context the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner also contended that herein as per plaint the transaction was complete in the year 1986, given a shape of an exchange and after given a shape of gift and the suit for pre-emption was filed in the year 1988 and that the suit is time-barred but the alleged exchange mutation was not carried forward and was substituted by the gift mutation which was attested in the year 1987 and has held by this Court in fact pertained to a sale transaction and as such there would not arise any question of limitation. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner further contended that the plaintiff-petitioner respondent's father's inheritance mutation was attested on 20-2-1988 while pre-emption suit was instituted on 15-2- 1988 and as such the plaintiff-respondent was not owner of the contiguous land at the time of the transaction and the institution of the suit. There has not been raised any such objection in the written statement. There has also not been led evidence as when the plaintiff's father has died.
4. There can be taken judicial notice of the fact that these inheritance mutations are attested after years of the death of the land owners. No other point was agitated at the bar?
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in the above conclusion arrived at by the learned Chief Justice in the impugned order. The question argued by the learned counsel is purely a question of fact on which three Courts below have recorded concurrent findings and we are unable to discover any misreading of evidence or non- consideration of any important material piece of evidence. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.