' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner from the judgment of the District Judge, Lodhran, whereby his suit for pre-emption, was dismissed.
2. One Allah Wasaya was the owner of 7 Marla's of land situate in village Laleywala of Tehsil Lodhran. He sold it to the respondents by an oral transaction. The mutation giving rise to the sale in the revenue record was attested on 27-5-1993. The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption on 26-9- 1993. The main controversy between the parties was that the petitioner had not made the demand of Talb-i-Ishhad within the statutory period of two weeks from the date of his knowledge of the sale. The trial Court rejected the objection but in appeal the District Judge upheld it. The High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the District Judge.
3. Allah Wasaya, vendor, was the half brother of the petitioner. It is in the evidence of Nazir Ahmad (P.W.3), a witness examined by the petitioner himself, that the petitioner has received knowledge of the sale after four or five days of its completion. The notice by way of Talb-i-Ishhad was admittedly sent to the respondents on 21-9-1993. Under section 13(3), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 the Talb-i- Ishhad has to be made by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgement due, to the vendee within two weeks of the knowledge of the sale. This was admittedly not done as the petitioners sent the notice almost four months after the sale had come to his knowledge.
4. Before the High Court it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was no post office in the village of the parties and as such the petitioner was entitled to take advantage of proviso to the aforesaid subsection which stated that in areas where owing to lack of post office facilities it was not possible for the pre-emptor to give registered notice, he might make Talb-i-Ishhad in the presence of two trustful witnesses. The High Court rejected this contention.
5. The evidence led by the petitioner is conflicting with regard to the day when he took two witnesses to the respondent to make Talb-i-Ishhad. If Muhammad Hanif (P.W.2) is to be believed the petitioner went to the respondent a few days before the registered notice was sent to the respondent. As already stated the notice was sent on 21-9-1993. It .May be added that the time limit of two weeks as laid down in section 13(3), ibid, applies even to a case where in the absence of postal facilities the intending pre-emptor elects to make a personal demand in the presence of two truthful witnesses. Thus, the finding of the first Appellate Court and the High Court that the Talb-i-Ishhad was not made within the specified period does not suffer from any infirmity. Leave is accordingly refused.