MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Vide registered sale-deed dated 2.4.1990, the respondents purchase the suit land mentioned in the plaint for a consideration of Rs.3,20,000/-. On 11.7.1990, the petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption alleging that the land has, in fact, been sold for Rs.2,00,000/-. He claimed to be a co-sharer in the suit land and owning adjacent land and also sharer in these amenities. Performance of Talbs was pleaded. The respondents in their written statement while asserting that they have paid Rs.3,20,000/- for the land, denied the said allegations in the plaint. Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff qualifies requirements of 'Zaroorat' and 'Zarar'? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled all the requirements of Shari Talbs as prescribed by law? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the defendants? OPP
(4) Whether sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- was fixed in good faith and actually paid as sale consideration of suit land? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff has no correctly assessed the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is correct valuation? OPD.
(6) Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.1992 the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.3,20,000/-. The respondents as well as the petitioner field first appeals, latter objecting to the price fixed by the Court. Both the appeals were heard by a learned ADJ, Gujar Khan, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but allowed the appeal of the respondents inasmuch as he reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court on the said issue No. 2 pertaining to the Talbs. This was done vide judgment and decree 'dated 3.5.1997 and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. I
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues with reference to the case of Haji Noor Muhammad v.
Abdul Ghani and 2 others (2000 CLR 781) that the learned ADJ has proceeded to discard the entire evidence led by the petitioner for the reason that he had not mentioned the time and place of the first Talb as also of the informer and witnesses in the plaint. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has tried to support the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have examined the copies of the records and also the impugned judgments of the learned ADJ in the light of the said submissions of the learned counsel. I do find that the learned ADJ has proceeded to reverse the findings pertaining to Talb-e-Muwathibat only on the ground that the name of the informer, the time and place of information and making of talbs has not been stated in the plaint. He has repeated the same reasoning for reversing the findings pertaining to Talb-e- /Ishhad. To my mind the learned ADJ has acted without lawful authority while reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No. 2 on the said grounds. In the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared that such an omission in the pleadings is not fatal. One other reason given by the learned ADJ is that the notice Ex.P.1. Is not dated... It is but obvious that nothing turns on the same. The execution of the notice, its posting and its receipt by the addresses has been duly proved on the record. The post mark is duly visible on the copies of the A.D. Receipts Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5.
The numbers of the registered letters are also noted thereon and the signatures of the addresses as followed by the dates of receipt of the notice. The said ground therefore, is not at all sufficient to discard the said notice.
4. So far as the matter of price is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the same.
I also find that upon a reading of the copy of the sale-deed in question Ex.D.1 that it bears stamp of the value of Rs. 12,800/-, with the agreement of the learned counsel for the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 2200/- is allowed as registration expenses/incidental charges.
5. The civil is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 3.5.1997 of the learned ADJ, Gujar Khan, is set aside inasmuch as it allows the appeal of the respondent and reverses the findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No. 2. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 2 are restored. The suit of the plaintiff/petitioner is decreed against the defendants/respondents subject to deposit of Rs. 3,20,000/- as price and Rs. 15,000/- as sale expenses, in the Trial Court on or before 1,11.2003. In case the plaintiff/petitioner fails to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,35,000/- after adjustment of any amount that might have been deposited by him earlier, his suit shall stand dismissed with costs throughout. At the moment the parties are left to bear their own costs. revision accordingly.