2010 SCMR 1375 (PLP)

CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.

Necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that original owner of the land in question namely Muhammad Shahbaz sold land measuring 18 kanal, 3 marlas to Shahadat Khan for consideration of Rs.4,00,000 vide Mutation No.1032 sanctioned on 17-6-2003. Petitioner filed suit for pre-emption against Shahadat Khan in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad who entrusted the same to the Court of Civil Judge on 13-9-2003. The contents of plaint reveal that petitioner filed suit for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharer, contiguous owner and participator in the amenities. Actually sale price was set down to be Rs.1,50,

000. The petitioner allegedly- came to know the said sale on 18-6-2003 at 11 a.m. in Patwarkhana. Respondent filed written statement, controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed seven issues and thereafter recording the evidence and hearing the parties' learned counsel, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10-5-2007 by rendering findings that petitioner had failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 25-7-2007. Thereafter, petitioner filed civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was also met with the same fate. Hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Courts below had erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner without adverting to Ex.PI mutation which was attested on 17-6-2003 in a huge crowd (Majlis-e-Aam). All the Courts below did not advert to para 4 of the plaint wherein the petitioner had specifically mentioned about the knowledge of sale that he came to know about the said sale on 18-6-2003 at 11 a.m. in the concerned Patwarkhana. All the Courts below had non-suited the petitioner on the statement of Bashir Ahmed Patwari (P.W.3) who had stated in his statement that petitioner secured the knowledge of sale in his office on 17-6-2003.

3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The trial Court had rendered findings of fact on issue No.2 after appraisal of evidence in toto and had come to the conclusion that petitioner had failed to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat in para 9 and discussion consisting of paras 11 to

18. The said findings were re-affirmed by the first appellate Court after re-examining the evidence on record as evident from paras 6 to 10 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court had not upheld only findings of Courts below while exercising power under section 115, CPC but also re-examined the evidence on record particularly contradictions highlighted qua the knowledge accepted by the petitioner/plaintiff about the sale in terms of para 4 of the plaint as 18-6-2003 whereas according to Bashir Ahmed Patwari Halqa (P.W.3) has stated in his examination in chief that petitioner came to know about the sale on 17-6-2003. All the Courts below had given concurrent findings of fact after proper appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. It is settled proposition of law that this Court, generally, does not interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. Even otherwise it is settled law that constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary in character. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as highlighted by rendering findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as vis-a-vis para 4 of plaint and statement of Patwari Halqa, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of petitioner. As petitioner's counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance, therefore, this petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./M-35/SC Leave refused.