' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Certain property, stated in the head note of the plaint, was transferred to the present petitioner through a sale Mutation No.1338 on which the statement of the vendor was recorded on 9-5-2003. The respondent/plaintiff allegedly got the information about the sale on 11-5-1993 and he made `Talb-e-Muwathibat'. Thereafter on 19-5-1993 he issued notice `Talb-eIshhad'. A pre-emption suit was filed on 29-5-1993. It was processed and vide judgment and decree, dated 23-6-2001 the learned Civil Judge-IV, D.I. Khan dismissed the suit. An appeal was filed which was accepted on 31-1-2002, the judgment and decree of the lower Court, dated 23-6- 2001 was set aside and the decree for possession through pre-emption was passed in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent on payment of Rs.12,000. This appellate judgment has been challenged through the present civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly stated that he will not press the nature of transaction and the market value of the property, rather he will concentrate on the compliance of the requirements of Talbs. Notice `Talb-eIshhad' was reportedly issued on 19-5-1993 where the date and time of `Talb-eMuwathibat' and the name of the informer was not stated. Moreover, the scribe appeared as a witness but since he was not a witness of the facts, therefore, was not concerned with the contents of notice. That is why the copy of the document exhibited in his evidence was not objected to because he, being a scribe, was unaware about the facts leading thereto. The learned counsel further' stated that on 11-5-1993 when `Talb-e-Muwathibat' was reportedly made on 19-5- 1992 when the `Talb-e-Ishhad' was made, mutation was not attested by then as it was attested on 25-5-1993. So prior to the attestation of mutation, the sale was not a permanent transfer, therefore, the Talbs and the suit for pre-emption based on the said Talbs was premature. He also argued that under section 13(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, it was required that the source indicating the information of sale must be disclosed and the `Talb-e-Ishhad' being deficient of the said source, therefore, the said Talb was defective. He further added that even in the plaint, the source was not disclosed and during the evidence, the informer i.e. Shah Nawaz, belonging to another village, was introduced. He allegedly disclosed the information to the plaintiff/pre-emptor whereas the person in whose premises the mutations were attested, was present during the said assembly and he did not communicate the information about the sale transaction. Hence it was argued that the entire story about the information was incorrect.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the attestation of mutation was not a requirement for Talbs, rather the said requirement can be fulfilled on the information about the transaction of sale. He further added that the fact of `Talb-e-Muwathibar and the notice of `Talb-e- Ishhad' has been proved without any objection and since the superior rights of the plaintiff are not denied and that the learned Counsel for the petitioners has already conceded that the transaction was sale and not exchange, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the decree for possession through pre-emption as awarded by the Appellate Court.
4. Admittedly two Mutations Nos.1338 and 1339 were attested for the exchange of property measuring 3 Kanals each, situated in the adjoining Khasra Nos. The mutations were entered on 2- 5-1993 and the statement was recorded on 9-5-1993. The plaintiff/pre-emptor got the information from one Shah Nawaz (P.W.7) about the said transaction who informed him on 11-5-1993 in the Chauk of Jaffer. He made `Talb-e-Muwathibat' there and then. The copies of the Revenue Record were obtained on the same day and notice Talb-e-Ishhad' was drafted on 19-5-1993. The suit was filed with extraordinary promptitude on 29-5-1993. Therefore, the action on the put of the plaintiff/preemptor was prompt and logical. Similarly, the objection with regard to the disclosure of source in the notice `Talb-e-Ishhad' in compliance with section 13(2) of the N.-W.F.P. ,Pre-emption Act shall not be applicable because the description of the source was required for the purpose of `Talb-e-Muw athibat' under the law. The name of the source is not legally required to be stated in the notice `Talb-e-Ishhad' nor was it required for the drafting of plaint where the summary of the facts can be recorded and not the minute details thereof. Hence, the contents of notice and the drafting of the plaint was legally correct. The observations of the Honourable Supreme Court with regard to the detailed description is with a view to asses the period of limitation but in the instant case, where the suit has been filed within ten days of `Talb-e-Ishhad' and within 18 days of `Talb-e- Muwathibat', there is no need of going into the details of computation of the period of limitation from the date of `Talbe-Muwathibat'.
5. However, in this case there is another important factor that it was not the transaction of sale simpliciter. There were two mutations allegedly witnessing the transaction of exchange between the parties. The term sale has been defined in section 2(d) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act which indicates the nature of transaction as a permanent transfer. The limitation has to run from the date of sale i.e. The date of attestation of mutation, the registration of sale-deed, the transfer of possession under the sale or any other mode of sale. The permanent transfer cannot be presumed merely by recording the statement of the transferor because being a transaction of exchange, the payment of sale consideration could not be presumed to give finality to the sale. Exchange of similar land in the adjoining Khatas may be revoked before the final attestation of mutation. The plaintiff/respondent has not been able to prove the transfer of possession or any other mode of permanent transfer prior to the date of attestation of mutation and therefore, the making of Talbs prior to the attestation of mutation was premature. No Talb has been made thereafter and suit filed after four days of the attestation of mutation on the basis of the premature `Talb-e- Muwathibat' and `Talb-e-Ishhad' was defective having not complied with the requirements of Talbs after the finalization of sale by permanent transfer as defined in section 2(d) of the Pre-emption Act. Hence, the pre-emption suit being premature could not be decreed.
6. The civil revision is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order of the learned appellate Court is set aside and suit of the plaintiff/respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.