SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 8.7.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge, Shakargarh was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent and stated that Mumtaz Ahmad was owner of suit land (measuring 8 kanals khasra No. 8 khewat No. 19/39 situated in village Chak Avidiah Tehsil Shakargahr and he transferred the same in favour of respondent vide registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- but in sale-deed mentioned its sale price as Rs. 1,00,000/-. He further stated that 3/4 days back he came to know about said sale in a meeting in the village through Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad lqbal and Zulfiqar Ali whereupon he declared that he would filed preemption suit as he had superior right qua the defendant. He alongwith said witnesses asked defendant/respondent to transfer the suit land in his favour but he refused, therefore, he sent notice "Talab-i-Ishhad" on 2.8.1994 and filed the suit. He stated that the had superior right of pre-emption qua, defendant as he was co-sharer in the deputed kheweat, Shafi Khalid and Shafi Jar. Rehmat Ali, defendant mentioned in his written statement that petitioner/plaintiff had not made talbs (Talab-i-lshhad and Talab-i-Muwathibat) in accordance with law. He further mentioned that he had purchased with land for a consideration of Rs.
1,00,000/-. Learned Trial Court framed. Issues, recorded evidence and found that petitioner had not made Talabs in accordance with law as he had not mentioned day, date, time and place of meeting in the plaint, hence dismissed the suit brought by petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment dated 8.7.1997. The petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed on 17.2.1999. Hence this revision petition.
Learned counsel for respondent was present on 23.4.2004 but on the last dated 7.7.2004 none appeared on behalf of respondent, therefore he was proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above petitioner had filed suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent as he had purchased suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1994. Learned Trial Court found that plaintiff/petitioner had not mentioned in plaint the exact date, time and place of meeting of witnesses who told him about the sale in question, therefore he had failed to make 'talbs' in accordance with law, therefore his right of pre-emption had extinguished. The petitioner appeared as P.W-1 in support of his case. He also examined P.W-2 Muhammad lqbal and P.W-3 Zulfiqar Ali. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in their statements. Even otherwise their statements are not confidence inspiring and the same cannot be believed. The judgment dated 17.2.1999 shows that learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh found that plaintiff/petitioner was bound to mention in his plaint the date, time and place and also the manner in which Talab-iMuwathibat was made but plaintiff had failed to meet requirements of talbs. The perusal of plaint shows that plaintiff/petitioner has not given date, time and place of making "Talab-i-Muwathibat'. So learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit brought by petitioner/plaintiff. The judgment dated 172.1999 shows that learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh decided the appeal brought by petitioner after appraisal above the plaint does not indicate the date, time and place of meeting for making "Talab-iMuwathibat." It is well-settled that it is necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to give detail of the same. Reliance can be placed on the case of Haji Muhammad Saleem Vs. Jhuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315) Paras Nos. 16 and 17 of said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court read as under: "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-eMuwathibat 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 there-from the performance of "Talb-e-lshhad" 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-eMuwathibat 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-eMuwathibat 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 ps Court where the view happens to be expressed to the contrary. Conceding, of course, that the material constituting evidence may or may not be mentioned in the pleadings."
So in the circumstances of the case I find that learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the appeal brought by petitioner. Para No. 5 of his judgment reads as under: "Both the learned counsels of the parties have mainly argued on issue No. 2 before me. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention towards the latest authorities on the point of talbs.
In PLJ 1996 SC 297 and PLJ 1997 Supreme Court 931, it has been held that the pre-emptor is bound to mention the time, date and place and also the manner in which the "Talab-i-Muwathibat" was made in his plaint. Failure to do so will debar him from leading evidence about the proof of such talbs. In the present case the appellant has asserted in para No. 3 of the plaint that he came to know about the sale 3/4 days prior to the institution of the suit in a Majlis of the village in the presence of Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad lqbal and Zulfiqar All witnesses superior right of preemption as against the respondent and that he went to the respondent alongwith the above- said witnesses and asked him to transfer the disputed land after receiving the actual sale price but he refused to do so and then he sent a written notice to him through registered envelope This much narration/assertion is not sufficient to meet the requirements of talbs as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the authorities cited above. The appellant has neither mentioned any time, date in para No. 3 nor has given a specific place where he declared about his intention of exercising the right of preemption. The appellant was, therefore, not supposed to lead any evidence for the proof of the Talb-iMuwathibat and Talb-i-lshhad as evidence cannot be I led beyond the pleadings. Keeping in view the lapse on the part of the appellant, the learned Civil Judge has rightly decided issue No. 2 against him. I concur with the findings of the learned Civil Judge on issue No. 2."
It is will-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore there is no justification to set aside the same.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.