Law:

Section:

CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-4-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Alipur, and concurred by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, vide his judgment and decree, dated 13-6-2000.   The facts, given in chronological order, are that the respondents/ plaintiffs filed Suit No.263 on 21-7-1994 for possession through pre-emption of the land in dispute against the petitioners. The sale in heading of the plaint was stated to be through Mutation No.353 entered on 28-5-1994 and the statements, dated 31-51994". The sale price shown in the mutation' was also submitted to be incorrect. It was further asserted that the sellers and purchasers had not issued any notice under the Pre-emption Act to the respondents/plaintiffs. The superiority of the right of pre-emption was also claimed. It was further asserted in para.5 of the plaint that at the time of mutation the Revenue Officer had not completed the proclamations, therefore, immediately after getting knowledge of sanction of mutation, the respondents/plaintiffs completed the conditionalities of Talb-iMuwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad and in the presence of the witnesses, proclaimed the right of pre-emption and like-wise Talb-i-Isshad was completed as required. It was further asserted in para.6 that although the purchasers/defendants were intimated through Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Isshad but they refused to transfer the land about 15 days before. It was further submitted in para.7 that the mutation had been entered and the statements had been recorded but the revenue officer had not sanctioned the mutation by then and when the mutation will be sanctioned, the plaint shall be amended accordingly. In para. 8, it is submitted that the cause of action had accrued in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs from the date of entering of the mutation. Subsequently, after sanction of the Mutation No. 353 on 18-8-1995, an amended plaint was also submitted. The petitioners replied the un amended suit as also the amended one and denied the assertions made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues…