2008 PLP 1085 (CLC)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

The petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding land measuring 19 Kanals, 16 Marlas situated at Tehsil Kharian. It was stated in the plaint that the land in question was in fact owned by one Jan Muhammad, who sold the same to the respondent on 24-2-1994 for Rs.30,000 but to defeat their pre-emptive right, fictitious price of Rs.3 lac was incorporated in the impugned mutation. The petitioner claimed superior right of pre-emption on the ground of co-sharer, participator in the easement and also owner of adjoining land. It was also claimed by him that as soon as they got the knowledge of impugned sale, they made Talb-i-Muwathibat in the same meeting and thereafter a notice was served to fulfil the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad. The suit was contested by the respondent controverting all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The learned trial Court after framing the issues recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of respective parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 8-6-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree filed an appeal but the same was too dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 4-9-999, hence this civil revision. Because of non-appearance, the respondent proceeded ex parte.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are totally against the facts, record and law applicable to the case. Further contended that the courts below have committed jurisdictional error by not attending all the evidence available on the file. Lastly, this is a fit case of misreading and non-reading of evidence and the courts below have also committed irregularities by delivering the judgment relying upon on minor discrepancies in the evidence as well as the contents of the plaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length but could not point out anything from the record as to whether any jurisdictional defect was committed by the courts below or misreading and non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel also failed to prove the claim of superior right of pre-emption of the petitioner although the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were referred. Those P.Ws. recorded their statement totally contrary to the contentions raised by the petitioner. In the last the learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the contents of the plaint wherein the particulars of details of dates, time and place of receiving information about sale and making Talb-i-Muwathibat and also names of the witnesses in whose presence such Talb was made has not been disclosed and the latest judgment given by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan titled as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. and others PLD 2007 SC 302, the learned counsel for the petitioner had not answered to this. Even otherwise, the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below attending all the evidence, oral as well as documentary cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Further in the presence of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (supra), there is hardly any chance to interfere with the judgment concurrently recorded by the Courts below.

4. With these observations, the petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-117/L Petition dismissed.