SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Qua the sale of the suit land Hakam /A.I respondent instituted a suit for preemption on 5.6.1991 that he had the superior right. The suit was contested. It had been dismissed on number of occasions and remanded repeatedly by the Appellate Court. Eventually on 15.9.1996, the learned Trial Court proceed to dismiss it whereagainst the appeal preferred by the respondent-pre-emptor was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian on 16.3.1998. This is revision petition by the vendee defendants thereagainst.
2. Issue No. 9 which was about the performance of 'talbs' has assumed importance due to variant approach of the Courts.
Findings recorded by the Trial Court against the pre-emptor-plaintiff were reversed by the first Appellate Court. In assailing the finding of the first Appellate Court, it is contended by the learned counsel that a totally misconceived and misdirected approach has been adopted by the first Appellate Court in reversing the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to state in the plaint the material facts about the performance of talb-e-muwathibat with its precision and exactness. According to him the view taken by the Trial Court was consistent with the pleadings and the evidence on the record whereas the learned Appellate Court has wrongly and erroneously interfered with the same. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (2003 PSCC 596) and Haji Lal Shah and another v. Abdul Khaliq and another (2004 SCM R 409). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned Appellate Court by citing Amir Jan v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1997 SC 883) that it was not necessary to make mention and disclose the date, place and time in the plaint. According to him the statement made by the respondent-plaintiff, coupled with the statement of Muhammad Ilyas PW-1 and Mehdi Khan PW-2 should be considered enough in respect of performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat.
As mentioned above, the sale of the land which is situated in the same village to which the parties belong took place as per mutation sanctioned on 25.4.1991. He is said to have issued separate notices on 1.6.1991 which have not been brought on record and exhibited in the evidence in the case. The perusal of the notice would show that nothing about the date, place and timing of acquiring knowledge about the sale was disclosed therein. Paragraph-3 of the plaint also does= not make any mention of date, place and time of the knowledge. As averment in the loose form that has been made is: {{URDU TEXT}}."-t2:3 :ASA; Os I/ JA,A51{{URDU TEXT}} The plaint does not even make mention of the person who gave the information about sale to him.
Mere production of Mehdi Khan as PW-2 to state such facts was not enough as necessary foundation for essential material facts had to be laid down in the notice and the plaint. In Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 1997 SC 315) while distinguishing Amir Jan's case (PLD 1997 SC 883), the importance of 'talbs' was highlighted and it was observed that the same should not be considered merely a technicality. It was thus held that:-
16. It is a settled principle of law that in case of involvement of limitation of any kind, the plaintiff has to specify the date and time of the commencement of limitation or the knowledge of the plaintiff in specific so that the limitation is computed accordingly. It has never been made permissible in the realm of civil law that a plaintiff who does ,not disclose the point of time of his knowledge about the accrual of cause of action, he could be accommodated subsequently in the evidence to satisfy the same. In our view, it is important to tell the date and time of the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint so as to prove the immediate exercise thereof and also as to whether he performed Talb-e-Muwathibat in the same meeting and before the dispersal thereof.
17. The date and time is important to be mentioned in the pleadings because therefrom the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad has to be computed so as to be within 15 days. As mentioned earlier, in civil cases in general the point of time qua the accrual of knowledge requires to be mentioned in specific so that nothing is invented during evidence as an afterthought. The cases of pre-emption should not be an exception to the general law and the day and time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat which" is simultaneous with the accrual of knowledge of transaction should be mentioned in the pleadings so that, at the first instance the immediacy of the Talb-e- Muwathibat is appreciated and at the second instance the limitation qua the performance of Talb- e-lshhad is calculated. This aspect has never been argued in any case before this Court where the view happens to be expressed to the contrary."
Thus importance of due compliance of legal requirements and rationale behind has been highlighted by the apex Court. In Haji Lal Shah and another v. Abdul Khaliq and another (2004 SCM R 409) as well a similar view was expressed.
As a result of the above, accepting revision petition the judgment impugned is set aside, consequently the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff stand dismissed. No order as to costs. .