MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J. - Through Mutation No. 113, dated 31.8.1992, Ghulam Murtaza respondent-defendant-vendee purchased the suit property comprising an area of 64 kanals situated in village Dharma Tehsil Chunian District Kasur from Mst. Safia Bibi in consideration for an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Claiming to be a co-sharer in the khata in which the suit property is situated and expressing that his land and the suit land were contiguous which were being irrigated from the same water-course which qualifications were not being enjoyed by Ghulam Murtaza respondent-defendant; Muhammad Rafiq petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit to pre-empt the said sale. He contended that he came to know about the factum of sale when he made the demand of pre-emption through Talb-i-Muwathibat and thereafter made a Talb-i-Ishhad by sending the statutory notice to Ghulam. Murtaza defendant-respondent in the presence of Muhammad Hussain and Chirag Din PWs. He maintained that the land in dispute was required by him for his on 'Zarorat' and the same would be a source of 'Zarar' if the same would remain with respondent- defendant. The respondent-defendant was served through substituted service through proclamation of notice in daily ' Nawa-e-Waqt' Lahore. He did not appear and ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. In the ex parte evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff Ch, Bashir Ahmad, Advocate PW-1 proved statutory notice Ex.P-1 about the exercise of Talb-i-Ishhad Hussain Muhammad alias Muhammad Hussain PW-2 and Chirag Din PW-3 stated that they were present in the dear of Muhammad Rafiq pre-emptor where they were intimated that Mst. Safia Bibi had made the sale of her property ^ in favour of Ghulam Murtaza and that he would purchase the same. They added that on the next day alongwith Muhammad Rafiq pre-emptor they went to the house of Ghulam Murtaza defendant who reftised to sell the property to the pre-emptor and that thereafter the notice Ex.P-1 was sent to the vendor through Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate.
Muhammad Rafiq preemptor appeared as PW-4 who stated that he came to know about the sale under pre-emption and that in the presence of Hussain Muhammad alias Muhammad Hussain and Chirag Din PWs he made the immediate demand to get the property. He added that on the next day he went to the defendant- vendee in the company of the aforesaid PWs and expressed his desire to get the land who refused and that thereafter the notice was sent by him through Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate. After hearing the parties the Trial Court held that the petitioner has failed to establish the factum of Talb-i-Muwathibat especially when the PWs were not knowing about the time when the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the sale. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was preferred which was resisted by the respondent- defendant. The learned lower Appellate Court held that Talb-i-Muwathibat was not proved and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/pre-emptor that Section 13 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 is applicable to the present matter and without Talb-i-Muwathibat and thereafter within a period of two weeks Talb-i-Ishhad the suit cannot be instituted. I express my inability to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. In explanation-I to sub-section 1 of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991, it is narrated that Talb-i-Muwathibat means immediate demand by a pre- emptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. In para No. 4 it is averred that Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were made by the petitioner/pre-emptor. About Talb-i- Ishhad it is mentioned that Hussain Muhammad alias Muhammad Hussain and Chirag Din PWs were present when the statutory notice was sent to the vendee-defendant. However, about the initial Talb i.e. Talb-i- Muwathibat it is not mentioned as to in whose presence or in whose sitting or meeting (Majlis) this demand was made. The statements of PWs-2 to PW-4 in this respect (about Talb-i-Muwathibat) are held to be after thought and without legal force which need not be relied upon. Thus the petitioner has failed to establish that he made Talb-i-Muwathibat in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) it which he had come to know of the sale and there he declared his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. In this case Talb-i- Muwathibat is not established. If Talb-i-Ishhad shall have to be considered it has also not been established. Mere notice Ex.P-1 is nothing enough in he matter. Its receipt by the respondent-defendant had to be established. 'Jo postal receipt been adduced in evidence to make me draw the resumption that the statutory notice of Talb-i-Ishhad reached its addressed .e. Ghulam Murtaza respondent-defendant. Even no post-man has been produced.
There is nothing on record to make out that the postal facility was not available in the village of Ghulam Murtaza respondent-defendant and rather it is not the case stand of the pre-emptor. Thus Talb-i-Ishhad has also not been proved by the petitioner who cannot exercise the right of Talb-i- Khusumat i.e. He cannot institute the suit. His right of pre-emption, if any, stands extinguished keeping in view the penal provision contained in Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid aspect of the matter and discussion would be that this revision petition cannot be admitted for regular hearing.
3. Consequently I dismiss this revision in limine.