' This revision petition impugns the order dated 12-5-1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 18-10-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Wazirabad decreeing the suit for possession through pre-emption of Muhammad Yaqoob respondent.
2. The name of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Asif Majid Awan, Advocate has appeared in the cause list for today, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Since the case was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 23-6-1997, in view of the case reported as Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and others PLD 2000 SC 820, the same cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and I proceed to decide the same on merits.
3. Muhammad Ilyas son of Sadiq Ali was the owner of land measuring 10 Marlas, Khawit No,260, Khatuni No,412, Khasra No,807/194/2, situated in village Bhatike, Tehsil Wazirabad. The said land was transferred in favour of Rehmatullah respondent through registered sale-deed dated 24-7-1990 for consideration of Rs,65,000. Muhammad Yaqoob, petitioner herein, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of co-sharer and also that he owned a house contiguous to the land in dispute. It was also pleaded that the suit property was purchased by the respondent for Rs,25,000 but to defeat the superior right of pre-emption of the petitioner Rs,65,000 were incorporated in the sale-deed. In the plaint it was also stated that Talb-eMuwathibat and Talb-e- Ishhad were made without loss of time and it was also stated that notice was sent to the vendee which was received by him and he refused to admit the claim of the pre-emptor.
4. The suit was resisted by Rehmatullah, vendee, by filing the written statement. He controverted the averments of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit property was purchased for Rs,65,000 which amount was paid by him to the vendor. He also contended that the petitioner is not a co- sharer and the respondent himself claimed to be a co-sharer in the suit property. He also denied the fact of making Talbs by the petitioner.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court. Evidence was recorded.
Thereafter on the application of the petitioner another additional issue, i,e, Issue No,1-A was framed by the trial Court, which is as follows:-- "(1-A) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirement of Talbs? OPP"
6. The learned Civil Judge on the basis of the evidence decided issue No,1 by observing that:-- "Both the parties are co-sharers in the disputed land. It is to be divided equally amongst both the parties. So, the plaintiff is entitled to pre-empt 1/2 share of the disputed land whereas the remaining 1/2 shire shall remain with the defendant."
' On Issue No,2 it was observed that the sale price of Rs,65,000 had been fixed and paid by the vendee in good faith. In view of the finding on Issue No,2, Issue No,3 became redundant. Regarding performance of requisite Talbs, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to hold that the petitioner has performed the Talbs in accordance with law. Consequently, he proceeded to decree the suit of the petitioner as stated above.
7. Rehmatullah, vendee-respondent, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18- 10-1994, passed by the Civil Judge, Wazirabad. He did not challenge the findings of the Civil Judge on issue Noc.1 and 3 regarding the superior right of pre-emption and sale price of the disputed land. The only finding on Issue No,1-A regarding the performance of requisite Talbs under section 13 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act was challenged in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had taken a contradictory stand during the trial of the case. In the plaint he has asserted that he came to know about the sale and made Talb-e-Muwathibat and that a notice was sent to the defendant, which was received by him. The date of knowledge has been given as 1-8-1990. He did not make Talb- eMuwathibat at the same time when he gained knowledge, but he stated that he went to the defendant alongwith 3/4 persons at about 6 p.m. And asked him to return the land. Thus the learned Additional District Judge was right in saying that Talb-e-Muwathibat has not been performed by the petitioner. So far as Talb-e-Ishhad is concerned, the petitioner stated in para.3 of the plaint that he sent notice which was received by the defendant, but, while appearing in Court he has not stated about the sending of notice.
' After framing of Issue No,1-A he again appeared and stated that there is no post office in their village Bhatike. Contradictory stand has been taken by the petitioner regarding performance of Talb-e-Ishhad. On the one hand he has asserted that he sent the notice to the respondent tbrough post, but on the other hand he stated that there are no postal facilities in village Bhatike. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that the plaintiff could have made Talb-eIshhad orally if he had proved that postal facilities were not available in his village. On the basis of contradictory stand regarding Talb-e-Ishhad taken by the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to reverse the finding on Issue No,1-A. Consequently, he set aside the judgment and decree, dated 18-10-1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge, and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the petitioner on the ground that Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talbe-Ishhad have not been performed in accordance with section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
' The learned Civil Judge recorded the finding regarding Talb-eMuwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad on Issue No,1-A by misreading the evidence on the record, which has rightly been reversed by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 12-5-1997 dismissing the suit of the petitioner. Resultantly, this revision petition fails, and the same is dismissed.