' Afsar Ali Khan, plaintiff instituted suit on 7-2-1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu against Sherin Gul and Muhammad Umar Jan, defendants, to enforce his right of pre-emption in respect of suit-land stated to have been sold on the basis of sale Mutation No,556 attested on 18-12-1995 in consideration of Rs,1,22,889 or the amount ascertained by the Court. It was averred that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the transaction on 14-9-1996 at "Digarvela" when he was informed about it at his Chauk by Dilfaraz, whereupon the plaintiff immediately made "Talb-e-Muwathibat" in presence of Karim Ali and Sher Ali who were present there and thereafter requirements of "Talb-e- Ishhad" were complied with and finally the suit was filed on the basis of plaintiff's being co-sharer and contiguous owner.
2. The suit was contested on all grounds legal as well as factual. The pleas of the parties gave rise to the framing of following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue?
(3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is Benami and defective?
(6) Whether the suit is within time?
(7) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption, if any?
(8) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the Talbs accordingly?
(9) Whether the suit property has been purchased by the defendants at the rate of Rs,49,500 per Kanal?
(10) Market value?
(11) Whether the brother of the plaintiff has instituted another preemption suit in respect of the suit property which was withdrawn, if so, its effect?
(12) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption?
(13) Relief.
3. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu proceeded to hold that the suit is barred by time; that plaintiff failed to establish Talbs and that an amount of Rs,1,22,889 was fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale price of suit-land. Having held so, the suit was dismissed by means of judgment and decree, dated 28-4-1997. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before learned District Judge, Bannu which was assigned to learned Additional District Judge, Bannu for disposal. The appeal was accepted vide order, dated 8-1-1998, impugned judgment and decree were set aside and the case was sent back to senior Civil Judge, Bannu for drawing a fresh judgment in accordance with law after hearing counsel for the parties. Feeling aggrieved, Civil Revision No,13 of 1998 was filed in this Court which was accepted vide order, dated 5-6-2002, impugned judgment dated 8-1-1998 of the learned Additional District Judge, Bannu was vacated and the case was sent to Appellate Court with direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits. Mrs. Zarqaish Sani, Additional District Judge, Bannu, seized of the matter, concurred with the findings of Court below and dismissed the appeal through her judgment and decree dated 25-6- 2001. Hence, this civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. By Afsar Ali Khan.
4. Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned judgments and decrees are against law and facts and findings of the two Courts" below on the question of Talbs are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and minor variations, if at all are there, could be of no consequence because examination of witnesses in 1997 for a transaction of 1995 could naturally result in slightest variations which are not consequential at all. In support of contentions, he placed reliance on PLD 2003 Pesh. 179 and PLD .1994 SC 356.
5. Mr. Faridullah Khan Kundi, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned judgments and decrees and prayed for their sustenance as, according to him, the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffer from no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
6. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard at length and record of the case gone through.
7. Although this Court is not called to reappraise the evidence on record in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, yet in the interest of justice, I have evaluated and assessed the evidence and feel that findings of both the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record and no material piece of evidence seems to have been ignored or excluded out of consideration. The overall assessm ent of the evidence made by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court and the findings arrived at apparently do not call for interference by this Court and as such, it cannot be said that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred or that the Courts below have exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail and careful manner, leaving no room for further discussion. Keeping in view the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the statements of the witnesses produced at the trial on behalf of the petitioner, the Courts below had valid reasons to discard their deposition and come to the conclusion that the requirement of "Talbs" as envisaged under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre- emption Act, 1987 has not been satisfactorily proved. It needs no reiteration that pre-emption right being a feeble right, pre-emptor seeking to exercise such right was bound to perform and fulfil its requirements meticulously and any failure in that behalf would deprive the pre-emptor of success in getting a pre-emption decree as held by this Court in Bakht Zamin v. Amin Khan 2004 YLR 202 (Peshawar).
8. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Is very limited. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Can only interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts on the grounds, that the Court below assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity affecting its decision in the case as held in PLD 1994 SC 1836; PLD 1970 SC 288; PLD 1986 SC 89; 1984 SCMR 504; 1987 SCMR 1005; 2001 SCMR 1651; 2003 MLD 625 (Peshawar) and 2000 CLC 1853 Peshawar.
9. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
10. For what has been discussed above, I find no substance in the present revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.