' MUHAMMAD BASHIR 'KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---Saifullah Khan, petitioner-pre-emptor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Dera Ismail Khan Bench, Dera Ismail Khan, dated 8-12-1994, whereby his civil revision was dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of a house which was decreed in his favour, on payment of Rs,1,36,200 apart from the court-fee, on 5-1-1993 by a learned Civil Judge, Lakki. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Lakki, while accepting the appeal dismissed the suit of the petitioner on the findings on issue No,2 viz., whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) (hereinafter recalled as the Act). It was held on Issue No,2 that the petitioner has failed to make ' Talb-i-Muwathibat' and ' Talb- i-Ishhad' strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act and, therefore, his right of pre-emption stood extinguished. A learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court affirmed these findings of the learned Appellate Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner maintained that all the three Talabs envisaged by section 13 of the Act were strictly made in accordance with law and, therefore, the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court have erred to hold that the Talb-iMuwathibat' and ' Talb-i-Ishhad' in this case were not made within he stipulated period and in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 13 supra.
4. A plain reading of section. 13 of the Act, more particularly subsection (1) thereof would indicate that "(a) the requirements of making ' Talb-i-Ishhad' are that the pre-emptor shall make the same as soon after making the Talb-i-Muwathibat' as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of notice issued by the Registrar registering the sale deed, or as the case may be, the Revenue Officer attesting the mutation of sale under section 32 of the Act or its knowledge whichever is earlier; and (b) by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses under registered cover acknowledgement due to the vendee, presumably in token of confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption and it is thereafter that he can resort to making 'Talb-iKhusumat' to enforce his right of pre-emption. The learned Single Judge while taking notice of the averments in the plaint took cognizance of other infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of the petitioner and went on to observe:-- "... ' Talb-i-Ishhad has not been made during the prescribed period i,e, after two weeks of getting knowledge of the transaction. According to para.2 of the plaint which bears the date as 28-6-1989, which was filed in the Court on 19-10-1989, the vendors had sold the property to the vendees about five months ago and in consequence of which the possession was also delivered and since then they were in possession, while in para.5 of the plaint the petitioner had made a declaration, of his intention on the day on which respondents 1 to 5 took possession of the suit property. These averments in the plaint show that Talb-i-Muwathibae had been made somewhere in the month of January, 1989, if it is counted from the date which the plaint bears i,e, 28-6-1989, but according to the statement of the petitioner, 'Talb-iMuwathibat' was made on 10-6-1989 and the notice was sent on 12-6-1989. Thus the petitioner got the knowledge five months prior to 28-6-1989 and he made the "Talb-i-Muwathibat' at that time. He did not thus make Talb-i-Ishhad within two weeks as contemplated by section 13(3) of the Ace. Therefore, the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that he has made Talb-e-Ishhad." . It would thus be seen that the learned two Courts below have rightly reached the conclusion that Talb-i-Ishhad' has not been made within two weeks from the date of notice under section 34 as required under section 13(3) of the Act.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition for special leave to appeal and is accordingly dismissed. .