JUDGMENTSAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- Mst. Irshad Begum, petitionerherein, filed a suit for pre-emption to pre-empt the sale of land effected through mutation No. 1954, dated 18.5.1992. The land was purchased by Muhammad Afzal, respondent herein, through mutation No. 1954, who sold it in favour of Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No. 2 herein, vide mutation No. 1997, dated5.7.1992, Maqbool Ahmed, further exchanged the land with Ghulam Muhammad, respondent No. 3 vide mutation No. 1998, dated 5.7.1992. The petitioner claims superior right of pre-emption, on the ground of being co-sharer, and contiguity.
2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, on 24.1.1996, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove the requisite Talbs. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, on 7.3.1996, whereafter this revision was filed to assail the judgments of the to Courts below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that small discrepancies in evidence in the Platter of Talbs should have been ignored and serious view of the matter could not be taken. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are without substance and devoid of any merit.
4. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the petitioner asserted that on 2nd of June, 1992, she alongwith her husband went to the office of her counsel, in connection with another suit titled "Irshad Begum vs. Amir etc., who advised them to obtain a copy of Jamabandi. Her Husband left for obtaining copy of Jamabandi when he came to know of the sale in issue and also the mutation attested in regard thereto. The petitioner was told about the sale. After returning to Jhang the petitioner, at 3.00 p.m.
Sent her husband and father-in-law to respondent No. 1 who apprised respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was owner of contiguous land and was desirous of purchasing the same. Thereafter, on the same evening, she sent her husband, father-in-law, Muhammad Latif and Pehlwan to respondent No. 1, who required respondent No. 1 to transfer the land in favour of petitioner by recognizing her superior right. From the statement in plaint, it is evident that the petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge of sale, when her husband obtained copy of Jamabandi and this was the time when she had gone to her counsel but she does not claim to have made jumping demand of Talb-e-Muwathibat, there and then on acquiring knowledge of sale from her husband and instead she claims to have returned to Jhang and then sent her husband, and father-in-law for establishing Contact with respondent No. 1.
5. The petitioner herself did not appear in the witness-box, and instead Muhammad Iqbal appeared as her special Attorney. He deposed that the petitioner came to know of the sale in District Courts on 2.6.1992, when a copy of Jamabandi was obtained.
6. The perusal of statement recorded made in the plaint and also the statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, does not indicate if Talb-e-Muwathibat was made in the District Courts when the knowledge of sale was claimed to have been acquired on obtainment of copy of Jamabandi by husband of petitioner. On the contrary, the plea is that after getting knowledge, the petitioner came back to Jhang and subsequently she sent her husband and father-in-law aiongwith Muhammad Latif and Pehlwan. The requirement was that when the petitioner came to know of sale she should have asserted her right and intention to enforce the same. The jumping demand was neither made nor claimed in suit, therefore, Talb-e- Muwathibat was not established. Even in the matter of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, the same is stated to have been sent on 26.7.1992, Though the Talb-e-Muwathibat is claimed to have been made on 2.6.1992, the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad had not been sent within 14 days from the date of alleged Talb-e-Muwathibat which requirement of law has not been fulfilled in this case.
7. In this view of the matter, learned Courts below did not commit any error, while concluding that the requisite Talbs were not established. No misreading or non-reading of the evidence could be pointed out. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of any force, is dismissed.