2007 PLP 3067 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

Vide Mutation No. 1138 attested on 26-1-1993 the petitioner purchased the suit-land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 1,0,

000. On 18-3-1993 the respondent tiled a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. According to him, actually a sum of Rs.36,500 was paid as the price of the land. He claimed to be a Shafi Sharik, Khalit and Jar. Performance of talbs was pleaded. The petitioner riled a written statement denying the said allegations and insisting that he has paid Rs. 1,00,000 for the land. Issues were framed.. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court found that both the parties are co-sharers in the suit-land and have an equal right of pre-emption. It was further found that the petitioner paid Rs. 1,00,000 for the land. Issue No.7 pertaining to talbs was answered against the respondent and consequently the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated l6-12-1996. A first appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned District Judge, Mianwali, who passed a decree in favour of respondents for .half the suit-land subject to deposit of Rs.50,

000. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 1.9-7-2000.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned District Judge has acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction rather has acted without jurisdiction while answering the issue of talbs in favour of the respondents. According to him, the pleadings as well as the evidence on record has been misread. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records. It will be seen .that only question of talbs was agitated before the learned District Judge as well as before me. In pare-3 of the plaint, it was stated that on 1-3-1993 the respondent went to Patwarkhana where Abbas and Muhammad Sadiq were present and he came to know that the land has been purchased by the petitioner whereupon he made the first talb. The notice was sent on 8-3-1993 under registered cover A.D.

4. The respondent Sultan Muhammad appeared as P.W.1 to state that he was told by Abbas and Sadiq about the sale whereupon he declared that he is a co-sharer and he will file a suit and that he sent the notice Mark-A under registered cover. In his cross-examination, he .was made to state -that he came to know about the sale in the office of the Patwari. The said Abbas appeared as P.W.2 while Muhammad Sadiq appeared as P.W.3.

5. Learned counsel states that the respondent stated as D.W. 1 that he came to know about the sale 8 days before the sale of some other land. He refers to the plaint Exh.D.2 to urge that the said sale took place on 16-2-1993 and as such he had the knowledge on 8-2-1993 and not on 1-3-1993. However nothing turns on the said contention. The reason being that the witness was not confronted with the said plaint. To my C mind, sufficient pleadings qua the matter of talbs are there and the' evidence led accordingly. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-269/L Revision dismissed.