' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Suit filed by the petitioner and her sister Mst. Naziran to pre-empt the sale of the land in dispute in favor of the respondents was decreed by the Trial Court but on appeal, learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran finding that Talab-e-Muwasibat was not shown to have been made by the plaintiffs and Talab-i-Ishhad, too, was not made as required by section 13 of the Pre-emption Act set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court and dismissed the petitioner's suit. Finding of the Appellate Court regarding Talab-e-Muwasibat has been affirmed by a learned Judge of the High Court, Multan Bench, holding that none of the two pre-emptors entered the witness-box to state that on coming to know of the sale, both of them immediately proclaimed that they would institute a suit for possession through pre-emption and that Talab-e- Muwasibat said to have been made by Muhammad Ramzan, the husband of the present petitioner was of no legal consequence as he was not the attorney of the pre-emptors at the relevant time.
Having held that Talab-e-Muwasibat by the pre-emptors was not proved, the learned Judge did not consider it necessary to further look into the question of Talab-i-Ishhad and proceeded to dismiss the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 2-11-1995. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred. To the evidence of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 1 to contend that Talab-e-Muwasibat was made by both the plaintiffs. The contention is not borne out from the evidence of Muhammad Ramzan who stated that he was present at the saw machine of Mistri Nazir when Manzoor vendee came there and told Nazir that he had purchased the land whereupon the witness in the presence of Nazir and Shakoor gave out that he would pre-empt the sale. The witness further added that on the following day, he along with the two plaintiffs and Nazir and Shakoor went to the house of the vendee where he offered the money to the vendee and demanded the land. The witness though husband of Mst. Salma admitted in cross-examination that he was not the attorney of the plaintiffs at the relevant time. His statement quite clearly shows that it was he who on hearing about the sale of the land declared that he would exercise the right of pre-emption and even on the following day, he made the demand and not the plaintiffs. It has been rightly held by the Courts below that Muhammad Ramzan was not entitled/competent to make the Talab. There is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiffs made Talab-eMuwasibat immediately on coming to know of the sale in question. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge affirmed by the learned Judge in the High Court recorded after correct and proper appraisal of the evidence on record is not open to any exception.
3. Upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.