1. On 8-2-1993, Shamad Ali and others (defendants Nos.2 to 8) exchanged the suit land with Allah Wadhaya (defendant No,1) through mutation No,17. Bahawal Khan and another (plaintiffs) attacked this transactipn as a sale and preempted being co-owners in the suit land. The suit was contested and during the proceedings an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint was moved. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, accepted the said application vide order dated 17-2-1994, which was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide judgment and decree dated 16-2-1998. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed this revision petition against the above-mentioned both the order and judgment.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly referred to the proviso to section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and submitted that as there was no post office facilities available in the concerned area, the plaintiffs had made the Talb-i-Ishhad in the presence of two witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that in these circumstances the service of notice as required by subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act was not necessary.
3. 3.There is no force is the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of the matter are that in para. 7 of the plaint it was claimed that Talb-i-Ishhad was made in the presence of the witnesses and then again through a registered A.D. notice as required by law. It was further mentioned that the photostat copies of the notice and postal receipts were also attached with the plaint. The learned Courts below on examination of the photo copy of the notice observed that it was not attested by two witnesses as required by subsection (3) of section 13 of Act IX of 1991 and consequently tile plaint was rejected.
4. 4.I would like to mention that in the first instance this revision petition is not properly documented inasmuch as neither the copy of the notice nor the postal receipt have been attached with this petition. Under the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C., an application under this sub- section is to be supported by the copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court. The petitioners were under a legal obligation to support the petitioner with the abovementioned documents. A petition not documented in accordance with the requirements, cannot be regarded to have been properly filed. The only disposal of such a revision petition is its dismissal being unsubstantiated. Obviously, the petitioners intentionally did not file the copies of the notice and the postal receipt as those should have gone against their interest. From the copy of the notice it would have been evident that it was not attested by two witnesses as required by subsection (3), referred above. They intentionally withheld the same and, thus, they suppressed the material fact in this petition which is liable to be dismissed as they have not approached the Court with clean hands. In the case of Abdul Rashid v. Pakistan and others (1969 SCM R 141) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: *We are satisfied that the petitioner did not state all the relevant facts before the High Court; that he deliberately suppressed the facts that he had been arrested by the Iranian Authorities for abetting his brother in a smuggling case and that for that reason he was considered an undesirable person. In these circumstances, the High Court rightly held that he was not entitled to get any relief in the writ jurisdiction. "
5. 5.The very fact that the petitioners allegedly sent the notice through post under registered cover A.D. negates the contention of their learned counsel that the postal facilities did not exist in the area. The relevant subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act is as under:-- "(3) Where a pre-emptor has made Talb-i-Muwathibat under sub-section (2), he shall as soon thereafter as possible as but not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge made Talb-i- Ishhad by sending a notice in rating attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgment due, to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption: Provided that in areas where owing to lack of post office facilities it is not possible for the pre- emptor to give registered notice, " may make talb-i-ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses."
6. A plaint reading of the above reproduced sub-section (3) makes it clear that the primary requirement in sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses under registered cover acknowledgment due to the vendee and it can only be dispensed with if it is not possible for the pre-emptor to give registered notice because of non-availability/lack of post office facilities in the area. Only then the making of talb-i-ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses is permissible.
7. This provision is not a substitute for the written notice but is permissible only when the sending of requisite notice is impossible. As the petitioner allegedly sent a notice in writing under registered cover, they are not entitled to lead any evidence regarding having made Talb-i-Ishhad orally in presence of witnesses. Anyhow, it is evident from the available record that the notice of Talb-i- Ishhad sent by the petitioner's did not conform to the legal requirements being attested by only one witness. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge rightly rejected the plaint as framing of issues and recording of evidence would have been an exercise in futility. The rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11 (d), C.P.C. is perfectly legal as the suit from the very contents of the plaint appears to be barred by law.
8. 6.It is well settled law that the High Court cannot interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings of facts unless there is any material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below. Even erroneous decisions on facts are not revisable except as mentioned above. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad (1987 SCM R 1005), Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 88) and Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 53), held the same view.
9. There are concurrent findings of facts in this case and no material irregularity or illegality affecting the decision of the Courts below has been pointed out. The revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.