1. ' This revision application is directed against concurrent findings of judgments arising out of suit for pre-emption brought by the respondent Ali Naqi, against the applicant..
2. ' The facts in nut-shell leading to this litigation are that on 17-3-1996 the respondent/plaintiff had filed the civil suit against the applicant/defendant seeking the relief for pre-emption and perpetual injunction with the pleadings that on 17-3-1996 he came to the office of Sub-Registrar, Kandiaro where he came to know about sale and purchase of Agricultural land bearirt Survey No,532(7-06) acres situated in Deh Mahessar was sold out by the applicant. After having this information the respondent/plaintiff declared his intention to purchase the said land and accordingly made a demand of pre-emption with the request to resale the said land for same consideration being owner of the adjacent land in the same Deh. The respondent/plaintiff and the father of the applicant has refused to resale the suit land for the same consideration. Consequently, the suit was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandiaro being Suit No,3 of 1996 and thereafter new number was allotted being Suit No,27 of 2000. The trial Court proceeded the said suit and on the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is having a right of pre-emption having Shafi-e-Khalit and Jar?
(2) Whether the requisite demand for pre-emption were made. If yes, were those in accordance with law?
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable at law?
(4) What should the decree be?"
3. ' The respondents/plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself and produced .The copy of registered sale-deed pertaining to the suit land and the revenue entries in respect of ownership to the land adjacent to the suit-land were also produced in Court thereafter P.W. Khair Muhammad and Shah Nawaz were examined in the trial Court and the side was closed by the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant failed to adduce any evidence and the suit was being adjourned on the ground that his brother namely Mansoor Ahmed was burnt in electric shock and sustained serious injuries and was under treatment at Civil Hospital, Karachi and he was unable to contest the matter in the trial Court. However, the trial Court closed his side vide order, dated 12-10-2000, whereas the side of the respondent/plaintiff was closed on 29-10-2000 as the matter was being adjourned from time to time for recording the evidence of defendant/appellant and from perusal of record six chances were given by the trial Court for purpose of recording the evidence of respondent/appellant. On the consideration of relevant evidence on record the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandiaro decreed the suit for pre-emption which was impugned in Civil Appeal No,125 of 2000. The appeal preferred by the applicant/defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kandiaro given rise to present revision application.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the brother of the applicant Mansoor Ahmed was admitted in Civil Hospital, Karachi due to electric shock injuries and subsequently the brother of the applicant died. It is further contended by the learned counsel that his client was unable to contest the matter in the trial Court and such adjournment applications were moved in the trial Court, but the trial Court closed his side without affording any opportunity to lead the evidence. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Mrs. Asmat Begum v. Badi-uz-Zaman and another reported in 2000 CLC 71, (72), Muhammad Nizamuddin v. Auqaf Department through its Administrator reported in 1989 M LD 953and case of Muhammad Sulleman v. Habib Bank Ltd. Reported in 1988 CLC 969.
5. ' Conversely Mr. Badar-uz-Zaman learned counsel for respondent regrettably contended that the applicant was negligent in perusing his defence in the trial Court and 6 dates of hearing were extended to the applicant for recording his evidence. It is further contended by the learned counsel that defendant/applicant was present in the Court while moving the adjournment applications but he did not examine himself in his defence. It is further urged that it was bounden duty of the applicant/defendant to bring his evidence in order to rebut the allegation of the plaintiff/respondent in respect of claim made by the respondent on the ground of pre-emption. It is further urged that applicant has not produced any material evidence before the trial Court, and after close of his side said order was not challenged by the applicant in Appellate Court and the matter was pending in the trial Court for 3 months for Conclusion of the same, but no evidence was led before the trial Court and the applicant was grossly negligent in pursuing his matter. It is further urged by the learned counsel that substantial right of pre-emption right was claimed by the respondent. Learned counsel has relied upon a famous case of Nabi Bux and others v. Syed Murtaza Ali Shah and another reported in 2000 M LD 1318. This judgment is based on the pronouncement made in case of Iftikharuddin v. Jamshed K.A. Marker PLD 1995 Kar. 608 and M.R.
6. Sons v. Junaid Association (Pvt.) Limited PLD 1990 Kar.
7. 387.
8. ' I have gone through the pleading and judgments of two Courts below and case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties. I am of the view that the findings of revisional Court can only be based to correct the error of law and not to substitute findings of facts of two Courts .Below.
9. The applicant has not lead any evidence nor he examined himself to dislodge the claim of respondent/plaintiff and the applicant was also remained silent for period of 3 months for seeking adjournments and has not dislodged the claim of the respondent. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandiaro granted six adjournments to the applicant for recording his evidence but he did not enter into witness-box nor produced any other evidence. There is concurrent findings of two Courts below in respect of decreeing the suit of respondent for pre- emption right over the suit-land and such findings of facts do not suffer for any illegality or misreading of evidence. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is, therefore, no avail to the applicant. Apart from the other and from perusal of impugned judgments reveal that the same judgments are based on the evidence brought by the respondent/plaintiff and they do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
10. All the relevant Talbs for the suit of pre-emption have been made in accordance with law and further the trial Court on the basis of issues decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The judgments passed by the two Courts below are well-reasoned and do not call C for any interference by this Court. The Revision Application No,46 of'2001 merits no consideration and is dismissed, with no order as to cost.