Qazi Muhammad Ariq the petitioner herein, pre-empted certain sale transactions against the respondents entered on the basis of Mutations Nos.3504, 3505 and 3506 dated 12-2-1990 by filing three separate suits against Muhammad Jan etc., the defendants-vendees. The pre-emptor allegedly got knowledge of these sales on 15-2-1990 and immediately pronounced his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption folloy4ed by sending a notice in writing to the vendees under registered cover acknowledgment due on 20-2-1990 confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption and afterwards on 3-3-1990 filed these suits. The respondents resisted the suits.
The learned trial Judge after settling all such issues arising between the parties out of the pleadings and recording evidence pro and contra dismissed all these suits in view of his negative finding on issue No.5 relating to demands of pre-emption, vide judgment and decreed, dated 27- 6-1991. The pre-emptor agitated the matter before the appellate Court but in vain. His appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Abbottabad on 27-4-1993. Hence these civil revision Petitions Nos, 124, 125 and 126 of 1993 lodged under section 115, C. P. C.
2. I have heard Qazi Ghulam Rauf Khan, Advocate on behalf of the pre---emptor-petitioner and Malik Manzoor Hussain, Advocate for the vendees---respondents. The learned Advocate while speaking for the petitioner stated that the pre-emptor had made demands of pre-emption in all the three suits in the order as laid down under section 13 of the M.-W.F.P. Act, 1987 and no sooner he got knowledge of the sale transaction in his house on 15-2-1990 he immediately pronounced his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. That the petitioner afterwards on 20-2-1990 sent registered written notices to the vendees attested by two truthful witnesses under registered cover acknowledgement due confirming further his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. A plain reading of the plaints filed in three suits would indicate, that the pre-emptor in unequivocal terms has mentioned in para. No.2 that he got knowledge of the transactions on 15-2-1990 and immediately pronounced his intention to exercise right of pre-emption and subsequently on 20-2- 1990 sent registered notices of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' to the vendees and afterwards in his Court statement reiterated on this stand. The registered notice of "Talb-i-Ishhad" in each case (Exh.P.W.3/1) was signed by two persons, namely, Abdul Qayum and Mohabat Khan. Abdul Qayum has been produced in evidence. Mohabat Khan has gone to Saudi Arabia and could not be as such examined is evidence before the trial Court. A perusal of the notice Ex.P.W.3/1 would further show, that the pre-emptor had clearly mentioned of his knowledge of the impugned transaction on 15-2- 1990 and immediately pronounced his intention to exercise right of pre---emption followed by sending of written notices duly signed by two persons, namely, Mohabat Khan son of Karam Khan and Abdul Qayum son of Qalandar Khan on 20-2-1990 through registered Post. A.D. The defendant- vendee Muhammad Jan in his trial Court statement has frankly admitted the receipt of these notices and stated that the respondents had duly sent replies of the said notices to the plaintiff through their counsel. The learned Courts below, as it seems, have been impressed by few minor discrepancies occurring in the statements of the pre-emptor and his witness, namely, Abdul Qayum regarding the writing and sending of these notices, which could be easily ignored and particularly in view of the admission made by Muhammad Jan vendee-defendant is his statement before the Court that the respondents have not only received these notices but also sent replies of the notices to the petitioner through their lawyer. The pre-emptor in the circumstances of all this evidence has been thus able to prove that he made demands of pre-emption, i.e., 'Talb-i- Muwathibat' and 'Talb-i-Ishhad' correctly in the order as laid down under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P.
Pre-emption Act, 1987 and could not be non-suited in his suits on this ground. There would be as such no force in the argument that in the plaints and notices the exercise of these demands with relevant dates and time were not sufficiently mentioned by the petitioner. Similarly, no premium can be drawn from this fact that the other witness of the notice, namely, Mohabat Khan could not be produced in evidence by the pre-emptor having gone to Saudi Arabia. The requirement of law is that the registered notice carrying 'Talb-i-Ishhad' shall be attested by two truthful witnesses which the pre-emptor did and produced one of these persons before the Court in evidence who was available. These notices not only have been received by the vendees but have been duly answered through a lawyer on their part.
3. In this view of the matter I find that the learned lower Courts have misread evidence on the issue of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-i-Ishhad' and erred thus in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally on with material irregularity. Accordingly these civil revision petitions shall be accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees set aside. The cases are sent back to the trial Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. This judgment shall be equally read in the connected Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 125 and 126 of 1993. No order as to costs.