' This revision petition calls in question judgment and decree, dated 16-12-1993 of the learned District Judge, Khushab, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree, dated 20-1-1993 of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the petitioner was affirmed.
2. To pre-empt the sale of land measuring 23 Kanals and 15 Marlas affected through Mutation No, 991, dated 31-3-1990, a suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by the petitioner on the 'ground of being co-sharer in the Khewat. After issues and evidence the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the basis of findings recorded against Issues Nos. 1-A and 4. It was observed that the requirement of Zarar or Zarurat, in terms of section 6 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was not proved and that the petitioner failed to prove Talbs in accordance with the provision of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge. In this revision petition, the judgment of two Courts below have been called in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below on the points of Talbs are not sustainable and that the evidence on record establishes the fulfilment of requirement of Talbs. He referred to the statement of the petitioner and argued that the Talbs were made.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgments of two Courts below and argued that the evidence led by the petitioner in support of Issue No,4 was discrepant and self-contradictory and, therefore, was rightly disbelieved by the two Courts below.
5. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and record perused. The perusal of plaint reveals that the petitioner has not mentioned the date on which he acquired knowledge of sale or when for the first time he made Talb-e-Muwathibat. In para. 3 of the plaint, it was asserted that few days before the filing of the suit, the petitioner acquired knowledge of the sale when the petitioner announced his right of pre-emption and intention to file the suit, in the presence of Ahmad Sher, Atta Muhammad and Hateem Khan. P.W. 1, in cross-examination, claimed that the petitioner came to know of the sale 1/2 days before the Notice. P.W.2, in cross- examination, claimed, that the petitioner came to know of the sale one week before the Notice. The petitioner appearing as P.W.3 in cross-examination firstly, claimed that he acquired knowledge of sale two days before the suit and thereafter stated that he got knowledge of sale a day before the Notice. The three statements were, therefore, self-contradictory. There are two Notices produced by the petitioner. Exh. P.1 is a copy of Notice, dated 4-6-1990. In para. 2 of the Notice, it is stated that the petitioner came to know of the sale, one week before the Notice when Talb was made. This statement is contradictory to the statement made by the petitioner as P.W. 3 wherein he stated that he acquired knowledge of the sale a day before the notice when the alleged Talb was made.
Similarly, another copy of Notice dated 9-6-1990 was produced, in which it was stated that few days before the suit, the petitioner acquired knowledge of sale when the alleged talb was made.
The oral evidence led by the petitioner in regard to Talb-i-Muwathibat was, therefore, self contradictory and discrepant and was rightly disbelieved by the learned Courts below. There being serious discrepancies in the statements of all the witnesses regarding the alleged date of Notice and Talb-e-Muwathibat, no reliance could be placed thereupon. The learned Courts below, therefore, did not commit and error in discarding the oral evidence led by the petitioner and deciding the issue against him.
' The entire evidence led by the parties was reviewed with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and no misreading or non-reading of evidence could be pointed out. The requirement of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 having not been fulfilled, the right claimed by C the petitioner stood extinguished and consequently, the suit was rightly dismissed.
7. For the reasons above, there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.