'Through this civil revision, the petitioner has called in question judgment and decree, dated 27-6- 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian whereby accepting respondent pre-emptor's appeal, his suit for possessions through pre-emption was decreed by the 'learned Additional District Judge by setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal, dated 15-6-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian. Hence the present civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the parties read out the pleadings as well as the entire evidence to support their respective points of view. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner/purchaser, the respondent totally failed to state the essential particulars qua the date, time and place of the exercise of Talb-e-Muwathibat in para. 3 of the plaint as well as in his statement as P.W.4, ' In contrary arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the pleading of the particulars as to the date, time and place and deposition thereto is unimportant and the same is to be inferred from the over all circumstances brought out by the respondent preemptor in his evidence.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record placed on the file of this civil revision including the pleadings of the parties as well as the depositions. The pleadings as well as the evidence have been re-examined in view of the fact that the divergent judgments were rendered by the learned subordinate Courts and the matter could not have been decided without reference to the evidence. Further that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned First Appellate Court has ignored and overlooked the contents of the plaint as well as the statement of the respondent-pre-emptor as P.W.4 wherefor the findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence.
4. In para. 3 of the plaint, the respondent as plaintiff pre-emptor just blankly stated that on acquisition of knowledge of mutation, he pronounced as Talb-e-Muwathibat his intention to pre- empt the land as he possessed the superior right. And that thereafter, he sent notice of Talb-e- Ishhad through registered A.D. On 11-8-1990 with attestation of two witnesses namely Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner from the bare reading of the plaint appears to be correct that the respondent plaintiff has neither specified the date of knowledge nor the date, time and place of exercising Talb-e-Muwathibat as pre- condition to the tiling of the suit for possession through pre-emption. While appearing as P.W.4, the respondent only deposed in the examination-in-chief that he in presence of Akram and Aslam declared his intention to pre-empt the land on the basis of his superior right and thereafter served notice. Even in the examination-in-chief, the respondent plaintiff failed to particularize or B specify the date of knowledge of the sale transaction incorporated through a mutation, dated 24-7-1990.
He also made no statement as to the particular date of exercise of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
5. Reference was made by both the learned counsel to the cross-examination of the respondent plaintiff while appearing as P.W.4. In the first line of the cross-examination, he stated that 'Bai' was effected one year and two or 2-1/2 months prior to the date of his statement (which was 30-10- 1991). As such, the date of transaction as per admission of the respondent in the cross-examination comes to either 30-8-1990 or 15-7-1990. In the fourth line of the cross-examination, he stated that he came to know of the sale transaction 10 or 12 days after the mutation (which was entered on 24- 7-1990). This also is a major contradiction qua the acquisition of knowledge as well as the date of sale. Even thereafter, he made no statement as to when and on which date did he make Talb- eMuwathibat. The, supporting P.Ws 2 and 3; allegedly the witnesses of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, also contradict each other as well as the respondent plaintiff qua the dates, the acquisition of knowledge and the exercise of right of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
6. The learned Additional District Judge appears to have gone by a general hypothesis that it is the statement of the respondent pre-emptor as well as the other evidence which is to be taken to determine the date of Talb-e-Muwathibat as well as that of the acquisition of knowledge. And the learned Additional District Judge thereafter proceeued generally and vaguely to state that these requirements have been met by the respondent plaintiff.
7. Having examined the statement of the respondent as' plaintiff (P.W.4), I do not find that the particulars and mandatory requirements of Talbe-Muwathibat as prescribed in section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 have been fulfilled and thereby proved by the respondent pre-emptor either in his statement or other evidence or the pleading. Contrarily, the learned Civil Judge through a threadbare analysis of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent has not fulfilled his mandatory obligation qua performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, without which no suit could be filed.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court has no option but to accept this civil revision. Accordingly the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27-5-2000' of the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian is set aside 'and the judgment and decree, dated 15-6-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian is upheld. As a result thereof, the judgment and decree, dated 15-6-1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Kharian shall hold field with the result that the suit of the respondent. Plaintiff shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.