The plaintiff/petitioner (herein) had instituted a suit against the defendants/ respondents for possession through pre--emption on sale of land measuring 1 Kanal situated in Khasra Nos.456, 457 Khewat No.97, Khatoni No.127, Mauza Rurki Khurd, Tehsil Pasrur claiming her superior right of pre-emption on account of common passage, source of irrigation and contiguous to the land in dispute. The petitioner asserted in her plaint that she came to know about sale in dispute on 18-11- 1995 when she announced her intention to pre-empt the suit --land and thereafter on 25-1-1995 she issued registered notice to the vendees/respondents claiming the land on the basis of superior right of pre-emption. The suit had been contested by the defendants/vendees --respondent herein who filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint.
2. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame the following issues:-- (1)Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean-hands? OPD (2)Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi? OPD (3)Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction, hence the suit is liable to dismissal? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has not fulfilled the requisite Talbs? OPD (5)Whether the ostensible sale price of the suit-land was Rs.1,00,000 and the same was actually paid? OPD (6)If the above issue is not proved in affirmative then what was the market value of the suit-land at the time of sale? OPP (7)Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee/ defendant? OPP (8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? OPP (9)Relief.
3. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15-5-1997 dismissed the suit.
4. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff/ petitioner herein preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot who through the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-5-2001 dismissed the appeal, maintained the findings of the trial Court. Both the Courts below non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff observing that she has failed to perform requirement of Talbs as provided in section 13 of the Punjab Pre--emption Act, 1991.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of her plaint that she came into know about the sale in dispute on 18-1-1995, when she in the presence of the witnesses declared her intention to pre-empt the suit. In her statement in the Court as P.W.1, the petitioner deposed that she came to know about the sale in dispute after two months and 18 days and she was told by Sadiq P.W. And at that time Latif P.W. Was also present. The statement of the P.W.1 had not been corroborated by any of her witnesses. P.W.2 Abdul Latif stated that the plaintiff/petitioner had told her that she will examine the papers then decide to pre-empt the land. P.W.3 Muhammad Sadiq categorically stated that he was told by Abdul Latif P.W.2 to the effect that plaintiff/petitioner would pre-empt the suit-land after checking and obtaining the relevant copies of the record.
7. From the perusal of the evidence produced by the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner has failed to prove Talb-i---Muwathibat which is a jumping demand the petitioner was under legal obligation to declare her intention at the place and time where she had received information of the sale in dispute.
8. Talbs at initial stage had to be made by female pre-emptor herself which was proved to have been made by the pre-emptor at relevant time. One of the witnesses of plaintiff/petitioner namely Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.3) has stated that he was told that the petitioner/plaintiff would pre-empt the suit-- land. The petitioner has miserably failed to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat and the notice of 'Talb-i-Ishhad' was required to be given within fourteen days from the date of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'.
It, means that the Talb-i-Ishhad follows Talb-i-Muwathiliat and it is settled proposition of law that the -pre-emptor who failed to perform all the three requirements of Talbs as required in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, in the prescribed manner would not succeed: Talb-i- 'Muwathibat' is termed as jumping demand and it is required to be made. i.e, the same meeting and sitting without any loss of time. The plaintiff/petitioner due to mere failure of performing all the three requirements of Talbs not entitled for a decree of pre-emption. In this context reliance can be placed to the case of Rashid Ahmad v. Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs 1995 CLC 1924.
9. Both the Courts below concurrently opined that the plaintiff/petitioner failed to establish the Talbs (three demands) for enforcement of right of pre-emption, which was prerequisite for grant of decree. The establishment of Talbs through the legal requirement as provided in section 13 of the Act is essential for enforcement the right of pre-emption and the delay in exercise of Talbs tantamount to acquiescence and extinguish the right of pre-emption. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case or Habib-ur-Rehman's v. Haji Muhammad Saleem and others 1994 CLC 1885 and Iqbal Hussain. v. Ashiq Hussain and others 1994 CLC 506.
10. To prove the performance of all the three demands is a question of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as laid down in case of Gulzar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCM R 2099, Nazir Ahmad v. Boota 1989 SCM R 456, Riaz v. Muhammad Salem 1989 SCM R 1491 and Haji. Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
11. The learned counsel: for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, jurisdictional defect, non- reading and misreading of the evidence in the impugned judgment and decree. He has miserably failed to persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.