' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-12-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in a civil revision arising out of a suit for preemption.
2. The agricultural land measuring 110 Kanals situated in villageThathi KaIra, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock was purchased by the respondents vide Mutation No,302 attested on 9-2-1991 for consideration of Rs,2,75,000. The petitioners claiming, right of pre-emption on the ground of being co-sharer in the suit-land and owner of the adjacent land, filed a suit on 25-5-1991. The learned Civil Judge, Pindigheb while deciding the issue relating to the performance of Talbs, having come to the conclusion that Talb-i-Ishhad was not performed by the petitioner within the statutory period from the date of knowledge, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 21-11-1991. In appeal parties confined themselves to the same issue and the learned District Judge, Attock, while affirming the finding of the trial Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 8-4-1997. The concurrent findings of fact relating to the non-performance of the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad was further upheld by the High Court in the civil revision preferred by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the finding of all the three Courts on the issue relating to the performance of Talbs was suffering from the defect of misreading of evidence.
It has been argued by the learned counsel that the witnesses have clearly stated that Talb-i- Muwathibat was made by the petitioners in their presence immediately on coming to know about the sale and the notice of Talb-iIshhad given on 17-3-1991 was within the statutory period.
Learnedcounsel submitted that Sultan Mahmood (P.W.2), one of the plaintiffs, stated that Talb-i- Muwathibat was made in presence of Mahmood Shah (P.W.3) who informed the petitioners eight days prior to the giving of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad and that said Mahmood Shah confirmed this state of affairs in his statement. The learned counsel while placing reliance on Abdul Qayyum v.
Mushk-e-Alam (2001 SCM R 798) has submitted that after lapse of a period of four years, the witnesses would not be in a position to give exact date of knowledge of sale, still the performance of Talbs was proved as per requirement of law but when he was confronted that as per statements of the witnesses if the period of four years is taken from the date on which their statements were recorded, they came to know about the sale on 17-3-1991 whereas according to the petitioners they received information about the sale eight days prior to the making of Talb-i-Ishhad on 17-3-1991.
This conflict would show that even the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat was not satisfied.
Learned counsel with reference to section 31 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, submitted that the mandatory requirement of giving the statutory notice of sale was not fulfilled by the concerned revenue officer after attestation of the mutation in the present case, therefore, the statutory period for performance of Talb-i-Ishhad would start from the date of making declaration of Talb-i- Muwathibat on gaining knowledge of sale. Under section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat is satisfied if the declaration is made by the pre-emptor immediately on coming to know about the sale and after making Talb-i-Muwathibat, if the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad is A given within the time prescribed therein, the requirement of Talb-iIshhad is fulfilled. In the case in hand, the petitioners have not specifically given the date of coming to know about the sale in their statements before the trial Court rather they as well as their witnesses have simply stated that a declaration for exercise of right of pre-emption was made immediately on receipt of information of sale. If the B performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad is not satisfied in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the pre-emptor would lose the right of pre-emption. This Court in Gul Hussain Shah v. Mulazim Hussain Shah 1996 SCMR 296 held that the essential requirement of Talbs to exercise the right of pre-emption must be specifically proved in strict terms of section 13 of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 failing which the right of pre- emption would be extinguished.
4. We having examined the record in detail, have found that theconcurrent findings of three Courts regarding non-performance of essential conditions of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad for exercise of right of pre-emption was not suffering from the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence to be interfered.
5. This petition having no substance is accordingly dismissed.
Leave is refused.