ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- This civil revision impugns the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1997 of Civil Judge, Jaranwala, whereby he dismissed the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.
2. Agricultural land measuring 36 kanals, 2 marlas in Khevit No. 261, Khatooni No. 537, Square No. 1.5, situated in Chak No. 70/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad was owned by one Muhammad Hanif son of Rehmat A.I. He transferred the above- stated land in favour of Muhammad Arshad vide sale mutation No. 1174, dated 16.8.1993. Petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Muhammad Arshad regarding the above- stated land on the ground that they are co-sharers in the Khata therefore have superior right of pre-emption. In the plaint it was stated that the petitioners came to know about the sale on 24.8.1993 from one Abdul Sattar son of Babu in presence of Hadayat A.I and Qasim A.I. They demanded the sale of land to them, but their request was turned down by the defendant- respondent, on which the petitioners served him a notice to establish Talb-e-Ishhad.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant by filing a written statement contending that the petitioners-plaintiffs did not fulfil the requirement of Talbs.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed necessary issues. Issue No. 3 was regarding the fulfilment of necessary Talbs, whereas issue No. 5 was about the superior right of pre-emption of tl:e petitioners-plaintiffs in respect of the suit property qua the defendant-vendee.
The learned Civil Judge decided issue No. 5 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners on the basis of Register Haqdaran Zamin Exh.P.5, which was not denied by the defendant. Issue No. 3 regarding fulfilment of Talbs was decided against the petitioners-plaintiffs and in favour of the respondent- defendant. The learned Trial Court observed that the petitioners-plaintiffs kept quiet and according to the statement of PW-1 they announced their :mention in the evening to preempt the sale; they failed to fulfil the requirement of Talb-eMuwasibat, therefore, he proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.1997. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-plaintiffs, filed thereagainst, by maintaining the finding on issue No. 3 by observing that the petitioners did not perform Talb-e-Muwasibat immediately on gaining knowledge of sale.
5. On the strength of ' explanation' to Section 13, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre- emption are sufficient. According to the learned counsel, Abdul Jabbar who appeared as PW-1, has stated that Abdul Sattar came in the house of witnesses's uncle where they were sitting, and told them that the land had been sold, whereupon they said that they would go to the house of the doctor (Muhammad Arshad, defendant-vendee) in the evening and ask him about it. Similar statement was made by Abdul Sattar and Hadayat, who appeared as PWs-2 and 3, by stating that they would make announcement and would also ask the doctor (defendant- respondent) about the sale. According to the learned counsel, the above ' words' (statement of the witnesses) were enough to constitute Talb-e-Muwasibat. He relies on Volume-Ill, Chapter II of the Hadaya and states that if the Shafee, on hearing of the sale, exclaim ' Praise be to God!' or ' There is no power or strength but what is derived from God!' or ' God is pure!' his right of Shaffa is not invalidated, insomuch as that if, immediately on pronouncing these words he without delay claim his Shaffa, he will accordingly get it; because the first of these is considered as a thanks giving on his being freed of the neighbourhood of seller. The learned counsel also relies on ' The Mejelle' and states that it is necessary for the person, who has the right to pre-emption immediately, at the meeting where the contract of sale is completed, to say something, which is evidence of his claim to take the property.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent on the strength of case reported as:- PIJ 1999 SC 1548-Akbar Khan alias Saleem Mehmood v. Government of Punjab.
PLJ 2000 SC 1853-Rana Muhammad Tufail v. Munir Ahmad, etc. contends that if the demand is not immediately made in the sitting or meeting. (Majlis) in which pre-emptor has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre- emption, his right shall be extinguished under Section 13(1), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991; Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Sattar and Hadayat, PWs-1 to 3, respectively, have unanimously stated that they did not show their intention immediately but said that they announced their intention when they met the doctor (defendant-respondent) in the evening. The learned counsel further argues that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two. Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as held in the case reported as Azizullah Khan and others v.
Gul Muhammad Khan (2000 SCM R 1647).
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioners-plaintiffs in their plaint have asserted that they came to know ,about the sale in dispute on 24.8.1993 through Abdul Sattar in presence of Hadayat son of Ahmad and Qasim son of Ismail and they announced their intention to pre-empt it because they had the superior right to purchase the disputed property.
8. To substantiate the petitioners-plaintiffs' assertions, Abdul Jabbar, attorney of the plaintiffs, appeared as PW-1 and stated that Abdul Sattar, PW, came from outside; it was afternoon time; said Abdul Sattar informed that the land has been sold, on which they replied that they would ask the doctor in the evening; in the evening they went to the doctor and announced their intention of filing the pre-emption suit. Similar statement has been made by PW-2 Abdul Sattar and PW-3 Hadayat, who stated that they went to the house of defendant after Maghrib prayers, and at the time of receiving the information they said that they would ask about it from the doctor (defendant- respondent). It is, thus, clear that the petitioners-plaintiffs did not perform Talb-e-Muwasibat immediately on gaining knowledge of the sale.
9. The statement in Volume-Ill, Chapter II of ' The Hedayat' and in ' The Mejelle' relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not helpful to them, because the words 'Praise be to God!', or '
There is no power or strength but what is derived from God!' or ' God is pure!', the first of these is considered as a thanks giving on Shafee's being freed of the neighbourhood of the seller; the second (which is an expression of admiration) is supposed to proceed from the astonishment with which he is struck at the intention manifested by the seller of doing a thing which would be vexatious to him. None of these expressions, according to the Hedayat' can imply a refusal or rejection of the Shaffa. The petitioners, according to the Mejeile' were not supposed to make Talb-e-Muwasibat immediately at the meeting where the contract of sale was completed, but they were 'supposed to make Talb-e-Muwasibat when they received the information of sale.
The finding of both the Courts below on the basis of evidence that the petitioners did not perform Talb-e-Muwasibat, needs no interference by this Court. Suffice to say that concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC. Resultantly, this petition for revision fails and is dismissed.