' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-6-2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, set aside the determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, and restored the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court whereby the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. We need not to give facts of this case as the same have been amply narrated in the impugned judgment.
3. The crucial point in this case is whether the petitioner made compliance in accordance with the dictates of section 13 of the Preemption Act, 1991. It is the requirement of law that the evidence in this regard should be unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring. However, the perusal of documents appended with this petition demonstrate otherwise. The evidence produced by the petitioner in this regard is contrary in nature and does not inspire-confidence.
4. The learned trial Court after scanning the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner had set up a fictitious story. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned trial Court, which is in the following terms:- "9. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted with reference to cross-examination of P.Ws.
That the plaintiff's side made fictitious story in respect of Talbs and his visit to the defendants for demanding the land. The cross-examination of the P.Ws. Had carefully been examined. According to P.W.2 when they visited the defendants, they were present on their Dera and only Sana Ullah the owner of Dera was not present. Sana Ullah is defendant No,2 in the present case and according to the plaintiff he was not available on the day of visit. Mansha P.W.3 contradicted the version of the plaintiff. On this point and according to him all the defendants were present, in their fields, near their Dera. Ibrahim P.W.4 deposed different versions as compared to P.W.2 and P.W.3 and according to the cross-examination of Ibrahim, Inayat Ullah and Sanaullah defendants were only present and the remaining defendants were not present, at the time of their visit. This contradiction indicated that any of P.W. Has been stating lie and thus, the attestation of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad by the truthful witnesses have not been complied with".
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity warranting our interference in the impugned judgment dated 6-6-2000.
6. Resultantly, this petition has no force which is accordingly, dismissed and .