MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Petitioner purchased land measuring 20 kanals in Mauza Wandhi Bhambiran Wali, Tehsil and District Mianwali through registered sale-deed No. 178, dated 27.6.1993 for a price of Rs.1,30,000/- from Yar Muhammad. To pre-empt the sale of the said land, respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption for being Shafi. Shareek'. Petitioner filed a contesting written statement which led to framing of six issues by the learned Civil Judge. After the trial, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent/preemptor by judgment and decree dated 12.2.1998 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove the requirement of Talabs in accordance with law. Respondent filed an appeal thereagainst. The learned District Judge, Mianwali vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000 by accepting the appeal, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and held that requirements of Talabs have been fulfilled by the respondent. The petitioner/vendee has assailed the abovesaid judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000 through this revision petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge has not only failed to consider the evidence of the parties, but has rendered a vague judgment on the basis of incorrect inferences from the evidence of the parties. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence of and respondent/pre-emptor on the dates of Talabs a was discrepant nd reference was specifically made to paras 2 and 3 of the plaint and statement of respondent appearing as P.W.-2.
3. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that respondent appearing as P.W.-2 has specifically pleaded knowledge of transaction on 11.10.1993 and vagueness of two/three months period accruing in the statement of P.W.2 was only due to illiteracy. It was further contended that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the witnesses of Talabs whose statements are required to be evaluated alongwith that of P.W.2 to form an opinion regarding date and time of Talabs.
4. I have examined the impugned judgment and decree. The learned District Judge while rendering his judgment on making of Talabs has overlooked to specify and refer to particular portions of the depositions of witnesses, bearing upon the dates of the knowledge of the plaintiff-pre-emptor and the exact dates of pronouncement of Talabs leading him to conclude that requirements of timely Talabs was fulfilled by the respondent-preemptor.
Furthermore the impugned judgment does not show that the learned Appellate Judge had attended to and endeavoured to meet. The specific reasoning advanced by the learned Civil Judge in detail, to support -his opinion and ratio decidendi, which he dismissed on a very broad and bland base that Trial Court had dismissed the suit on the basis of "minor discrepancies about the time." The learned District Judge had not spelt, out or made a reference to any of the "discrepancies" termed as minor. It has also not been opined as to how and why did he consider such discrepancies to be minor. In a suit for pre-emption, under 1991 Act and Injunctions of Islam each and every fact and discrepant statement bearing upon the date and time of the knowledge of the plaintiff-pre-emptor and Talab-e-Muwathibat has to be taken into account to adjudge upon performance of the plaintiff-pre-emptor as per Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
"Discrepancy. A difference between two things ought to be identical, as between one writing and another; a variance. Also discord, discordance, dissonance, dissidence, unconformity, disagreement, difference."
5. In view thereof, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Mianwali for re-decision of the Appeal, which shall be deemed to be pending before him. Parties are left to bear their on costs. .