' With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties this case is being treated as Pacca case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit of pre-emption against the respondent with respect to the property detailed in the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14-2- 2002 dismissed the suit, the same was assailed through an appeal, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17-12-2004. Through this revision both these judgments and decrees are being assailed.
3. The sole question on the basis of which the petitioner was non-suited was that the petitioner had failed to mention the date, time and place of acquiring knowledge of sale in his plaint. The relevant para. Of the plaint is reproduced for ready reference:- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as 2000 SCM R 314 and 2000 SCM R 329 that a plaintiff/pre- emptor is not required to mention date, time and place of acquiring knowledge of sale in his plaint.
When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 2003 SC 315, he contends with reference to 1997 SCM R 1368 and 1999 SCM R 2518 that if any different view is expressed by a Bench comprising less member of Judges against a view taken by a Larger Bench then the view of the Larger Bench shall prevail.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. There is no denying the fact that both the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner were delivered by five Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court and the view expressed was that a plaintiff is not required to mention the detail of date, time, place and witnesses before whom the knowledge of sale was acquired in his plaint. It is also settled principle of law., as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a point of law determined by a Larger Bench shall prevail and has to be followed.
' In case 2000 SCM R 314 the following judgments were referred:-- ' PLD 1997 SC 883, 1999 SCM R 717, 1998 SCMR 2012, 1999 SCM R 958, PLD 1998 SC 121.
' While judgment rendered by a Bench of five Honourable Judges in case titled Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani Civil Appeal No,1004 of 1999 (reported as 2000 SCM R 329) was relied. All the judgments referred by the Honourable Supreme Court were rendered by the Benches of two Judges. In PLD 1998 SC 121, different view was taken i,e, the plaintiff-pre-emptor is required to mention the date, time, place etc. In his plaint. The judgment relied upon i,e, Haji Noor Muhammad's case was rendered by a Bench of five Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court taking the view that the plaintiff is not required to mention the above facts in his plaint.
7. Now coming to the judgment reported as PLD 2003 SC 315, it is to be seen that this judgment was rendered by three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court. Findings on the point in issue were recorded in paras. 16 and 17 of the judgment which are reproduced for ready reference:-- "(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-i-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-i-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 preemption should not be an exception to the general law and the day and time of performance of Talb-i- 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-i-Muwathibat is appreciated and at the second instance the limitation qua the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad is calculated. This aspect has never been argued in any case before this 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."
' It is clear from the reading of the above paragraphs of the judgment that a different view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court by a Bench of three Honourable Judges as against the view taken by a larger Bench of five Judges 2000 SCM R 314.
8. In the ordinary course and keeping in view the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the view expressed by the Larger Bench should be followed. But at this stage, it is also necessary to note that in para. 18 of the judgment of the Honourable three Judges the earlier judgment of Larger Bench 2000 SCM R 314 was taken note of. For ready reference para.18 is reproduced as follows:-- "(18) A similar question had arisen before this Court in a case of Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed 2000 SCM R 314, where it was held that a plaintiff could not be non-suited on the ground that day, time and place when and where the plaintiff learnt about the sale transaction were not specifically pleaded in the plaint. We have gone carefully through the above ruling and have observed that the question of limitation concerning Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-iKhusumat were never argued before the Court as discussed by us in the instant judgment.
Had the factum of limitation concerning these Talbs been argued before this Court in case of Altaf Hussain (supra), the decision would certainly have been altogether different."
' Since the Honourable Supreme Court has itself taken note of the judgment of the Larger Bench at the later point of time and has taken a different view from that of the Larger Bench, therefore, in these circumstances I feel myself constrained to follow the judgment later in time.
9. As a result of the above discussion, since the petitioner has failed to mention the date, time and place of acquiring knowledge of sale in his plaint, 1 find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.