' Through the filing of the present revision petition, filed under section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1996, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissal the appeal, filed by the petitioner and upheld judgment and decree dated 24-5-1992 passed by learned Civil. Judge, through which he dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner, for possession through pre-emption.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that one Mst. Rasolan Bibi daughter of Hayat, the vendor, sold, the land measuring 20 Kanals, 1 Marla (elaborately described in para. 1 of the plaint) vide sale-deed, registered on 12-2-1990, to the respondent, Muhammad Bashir, for a total consideration of Rs,one lac as incorporated in the sale-deed, itself. The petitioner, being, a pre-emptor, filed a suit for possession through exercise of its alleged right of pre-emption, on 26-2- 1990 against the respondent, however, the same was subsequently withdrawn in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently the suit, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, was filed by the petitioner, on 10-6-1990, after the promulgation of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. It was alleged in the plaint that sale price of the land in dispute is Rs,30,000 and in order to defeat the right of pre-emption of the petitioner, the ostensible sale price has been incorporated as Rs,one lac in the sale-deed. The grounds for claiming superior right of pre-emption, as mentioned in the plaint, are Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and also Shafi Jar. The suit was contested by the respondent, by way of filing the written statement, thereby taking numerous legal objections, in controverting the contents of the plaint and inter alia asserting that the petitioner has got no superior rights; and that he has not fulfilled the requirement of "Talbs" as required under the law; that the sale consideration- is in fact one lac and that he has made improvements over the disputed property. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed numerous issues, recorded the evidence of the parties- and though decided Issues Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in favour of the petitioner, yet rendered his findings on Issues Nos.3 and 8 against the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss his suit vide judgment and decree, dated 24-5-1992. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said decree before the appellate forum, who uphold the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No,3, which was decided in favour of the respondent by the .Learned Civil Judge. As regards Issue No,8, it was held that the sale price was Rs,one lac and not Rs,3 lacs. Despite the aforementioned findings rendered in favour of the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was not able to prove from the evidence on record that he in fact fulfilled that requirements of "Talbs" vide judgment and decree dated 12-3-1996, hence the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although no issue regarding the Talbs was framed by the learned trial Court, yet the First Appellate Court has non-suited the petitioner on the ground of non-fulfilment of the requirement of 'Talbs, that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence to prove the said issue and that the learned Appellate Court, if felt necessary, could have framed the issue regarding the fulfilment of requirement of Talbs and thereafter the said issue could have been decided either way.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent in his written statement specifically asserted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of Talbs, as required under the law and though specific issue on the fulfil.-aent of requirement of Talbs was not framed, yet the parties were permitted to lead evidence on the said crucial aspect of the case and in fact both the parties led the evidence and now when the case has been decided against the petitioner, he cannot turn round and say that no specific issues were framed. In the above perspective, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts below.
5. Now the pivotal question, which requires deiermination by this Court in the instant revision petition, in the present set of circumstances, is as to whether a Court can give findings on a material proposition and points of controversy between the parties, without framing a specific issue, ,when the parties in fact already led evidence on the said material proposition of law.
6. Upon the examination of the plaint, I find that in para. 3 it has been submitted by the petitioner that as soon as he came to know about the sale in a meeting, he before the dispersal of the said meeting announced, that he would exercise his right of pre-emption and as such fulfilled requirement of "Talb-eMuwathibat". Similarly in para. 6 of the paint, it has been submitted that he has sent a written notice dated 2-6-1990 through registered acknowledgement due attested by witnesses regarding the superior right of preemption, to the respondent and as such he fulfilled the requirement of "Talb-e-Ishhad". It would be advantageous to reproduce the aforementioned para. Of the plaintiff which is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Similarly the respondent in his written statement not only denied paras. 3 and 6 of the plaint, but specifically took a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner before filing the suit has not fulfilled the requirement of "Talbs" as required under Shariat ammadi . Preliminary Objection No,10 is reproduced below:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Although the learned trial Court should have framed the specific issues on this material controversy, but the same was not framed, however, the parties were allowed to lead evidence on this unframed issue. In this regard the petitioner produced Muhammad Saleem as P.W.2, who stated that the petitioner on 2-6-1990, came to him with two witnesses and instructed him to draft a notice to be sent to Bashir, as such he drafted the notice, copy whereof was produced by the said witness. He admitted his signatures on the said notice and produced copy of the same which was exhibited as Exh.P.2, he further stated that the witnesses signed in his presence and thereafter the said notice was posted through' registered acknowledgement due and the receipt which is Exh.P.1 was shown to him. P.W.3, is Abdul Latif, who deposed that when 1-1/2 years before, Saleem told the petitioner about the sale, he was present there and that at the same mome the petitioner made a Talb and said that he will exercise his right of pre-emption. Later on the petitioner took Saleem and Manzoor along with him to the 'Dera' of the respondent and made the second Talb. This witness has also deposed that later on the petitioner told him that he has given the notice of Talb, to the respondent through Mr. Saleem Chughtai Advocate. Similarly Manzoor Hussain, who appeared as P.W.4, deposed with the Talbs. P.W.5 is the attorney of the petitioner, who inter alia deposed about the fulfilment of talbs in the presence of Manzoor and Abdul Latif and alsD described about making of Talb-eIshhad. He also stated that a registered notice was sent to the respondent. In rebuttal, the respondent produced one witness apart from recording his own statement, wherein he deposed that he did not receive any notice and the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements of Talbs.
7. After scanning through the evidence of the parties, it has become clear that although no specific issue on the fulfilment of Talbs was formulated, yet the parties, specially the petitioner, produced many witnesses and all of them in one way or the other stated about the making of demands not only of Talb-e-Muwathibat, but also about the Talb-e-Ishhad. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner produced as many as witnesses as he desired to produce and at no stage the trial Court prevented the petitioner from adducing the evidence regarding making of Talbs on the plea that the issue has not been framed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akbar and 2 others (1993 SCM R 2018), while relying upon previously decided case by the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as The Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hasan Askary and others (PLD 1971 SC 82), has declared the law that even if the specific issues are not framed but allegations made in the plaint are challenged in the written statement and the Court has allowed evidence to be led, then the decision rendered without framing of the specific issues is not illegal.
8. The proposition of law decided in the afore noted case of Fazal Muhammad Bhatti is fully applicable in the present case. As noted above, the petitioner pleaded about the fulfilment of the requirement of two Talbs in the written plaint; the said fact was specifically denied by the respondent; the learned trial Court allowed the petitioner to lead evidence; and the petitioner produced the witnesses at his own Will and desire and now it cannot be agitated on behalf of the petitioner that a decision rendered without framing of the issues is illegal. Being guided by aforesaid case of Fazal Muhammad Bhatti, I am constrained to hold that the learned Additional District Judge,. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the plea of non fulfilment of Talbs did not commit any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by the Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment- and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, I find that the learned Judge after taking into consideration the relevant facts of the case and law on the subject, has elaborately discussed in para. 12 of the judgment, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner has miserably failed to established "Talb-e-Ishhad" in accordance with Islamic Pre-emption Ordinance.
10. Additionally I have examined both the judgments passed by the Courts below and find that the same are unexceptionable, legal, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference by this Court and I have no reasons to disagree with the findings rendered by First Appellate Court.
11. It is settled law that the findings on questions of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless those findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularities. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafique v.
Aamer Shahzad and others (1999 YLR 610).
12.The concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, produced by the respective parties before the learned trial Court. No case of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been made out, neither any legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel even during the arguments, nor illegal exercise of jurisdiction nor failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the Courts below has been attributed.
1.3. It is settled law that concurrent findings of facts, based on evidence, are not liable to be interfered in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCM R 431), Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647), Altai Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another (2000 SCM R 314), Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 SCM R 329) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291).
14. In view of the above reasons and findings, the revision, petition is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.