This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-7-1991 passed by the District Judge, Jhang whereby judgment and decree, dated 16-3-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Shorkot dismissing the suit of the petitioner was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on 31-7-1988 from the sale of land vide Mutation No.2841 dated 20-8-1987 for a consideration of Rs.
One lac. It was stated in the plaint that only a sum of Rs.80,000 was paid by the vendee and the sale price of Rs.One lac was shown fictitiously to frustrate the right of the petitioner. Superior right of pre-emption was claimed on the ground of being co-sharer in the same Khata of land. Suit was contested by the respondent and a preliminary objection was raised that neither 'Talb-e-Movasbit" nor Talb-e-Ishhad' was made as such the suit was not maintainable. The respondent also pleaded that in the event of the suit be decreed, he would be entitled to recover Rs.5,000 on account of improvements and Rs.14,000 on account of completion of sale: From the pleadings of the parties as many as 8 issues were framed and both the parties produced their evidence. On behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner statement was made by his counsel on 11-3-1990 whereby a copy of Jamabandi Exh.P.1 and copy of mutation Exh.P.2 was produced and the evidence of plaintiff/petitioner was closed. No evidence was produced on behalf of counsel for the respondent. The trial Court treating Issue No.2 relating to the Talbs as preliminary issue, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit for want of Talbs. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was decided by the District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 31-7-1991.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly tried to argue that the petitioner made request to the defendant on three different occasions to accept the actual sale price and transfer the suit-land in his favour. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner these requests constituted Talb-e-Movasbit and Talb-e-Ishhad. No other point was urged by the petitioner.
4. I have examined the record and considered the 'arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that no Talb as prescribed and envisaged under a principle of Islamic jurisdiction was made by the petitioner. No evidence whatsoever was produced by the petitioner. Onus was on him to prove Talb-e-Movasbit A or Talb-e-Ishhad. The petitioner merely tendered a copy of Jamabandi Exh.P.1 and a copy of mutation Exh.P.2. In the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance. Both the Courts below have rightly concluded that in the absence of any evidence it was not proved that any Talb was made. The judgment of both the Courts below does not suffer with no material irregularity or legal infirmity.
Accordingly this civil revision having no merits is dismissed.