JAWWAD S. KHAVVAJA, This ,revision, petition filpd by the petitioner impugns the appallatadudgment.,,,, and :decree, :dated 11.5.1.999. Passed-4/ 14e liflaMecii Additional District Judge, Kharian., The leame0 ftO7l/Vero-1 Appellate Court set, aside the judgment and deCree of the learned Trial Court dated 18.5.1998 whereby a preemption suit filed by the _petitioner had been decreed. As a result of the appellate04.9ment the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. The only issue Of relevance in the 'PiA4itri' ri4tiii8WielifeS16'italabs which was'fraineditittle4fiiireitAnTtleiVriliitie A PlIVIUM "Whether the 'PlainfiWfulfilled the requirements of Talabs under the'12644, of pre-emption? OPP"
2. The learned lower Appellate Court has examined the eillitent* to the conclusion that thelaetitidifier has-beenkunableito proveD Talb-e-Muwathibat. The testimony of the petitioners(,:; witnesses has been duly. considereFiipy the learned-o lower Appellate Court,,Ibecier,:also:,:.Gone through:, the said testimony with the assistance of learned counsel{{BLUR PAGE}} for the petitioner and note that there are discrepancies and contradictions in such testimony.
Furthermore, the petitioner, who has asserted that he was out of the country at the relevant time, has not produced his passport to prove the dates on which he was out of Pakistan. He has given specific dates of his exit and return to Pakistan for periods subsequent to the date of the impugned sale but has not done so far the second half of 1990 which is the material period for the purpose of the present litigation. This circumstance has also been noted by the learned lower Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents and dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which would require interference therein while