MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.- The brief resume of the case is that plaintiff Fateh Muhammad, the plaintiff herein had filed a suit for possession through preemption against sale of land measuring 7 Kanals, 1 Marla situated in Chak No. 572/G/B. Tehsil Nankana in the Court of Civil Judge, Nankana against the vendees/respondents. He claimed his superior right of pre-emption being co-sharer of the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendants who filed a written statement raising some preliminary objections. From the factual controversy, appearing on the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-- ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of preemption as against defendants? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
(3) Whether the sit has incorrectly been valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, if so then what is the correct valuation? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own words and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether defendants are entitled to recover incidental charges in case of decree in favour of the plaintiff, if so, to what extent? OPD
(6) Whether defendants are entitled to recover Rs. 5000/- as improvements from the plaintiff in case of decree in his favour? OPD
(7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is Bainamidar, If so, what is its effect? OP Parties.
(8) Whether the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of Talabs, if so, its effect? OPD
(9) Whether the sale price of the suit land was fixed as Rs. 1,25,000/- in good faith at the time of sale? OPD
(10) If the above issue is not proved, then what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? OPD
(11) Relief,
2. After recording apriciation the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the Learned Triarl Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.6.2000 dismissed the suit with the observations that the plaintiff has not proved the talbs in accordance with law of pre-emption. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib who vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2003 dismissing the appeal upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of both the Courts below on issue No. 8 which is as under:-- "Whether the plaintiff fulfilled the requirements of talbs. If so, its effect? OPD"
To establish his case the plaintiff produced four PWs, namely, Muhammad Awais, Girdawar, PW-1, Muhammad The parties, After recording appreciating the evidence of pro and contra, the learned Trial Court vide Khan, PW-2, Anwar Khan PW-3 and Ismail son of Walay Khan PW-4, In written statement plaintiff in his plaint in paragraph 3 of his plaint the plaintiff/petitioner has mentioned that the sale in dispute came into his knowledge on 5.10.1994 when he was sitting in his house and PWs Muhammad Ismail and Anwar Khan informed him about the sale in dispute.
4. The plaintiff/petitioner did not appear in the Court to establish his case and instead his son, the attorney appeared as PW-2. The plaintiff did not appear and has failed to prove the performance of requirements of three talbs provided in Punjab Pre-emption Act. Muhammad Ali PW-2 stated in his statement in the Court that he was sitting with his father in the house when Anwar came there and told that the vendor Dilbar Khan has sold the land to the defendants/respondents and thereafter they went to the house of Dilbar Khan vendor and asked him to return the land to them and offered him to make payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the real amount of the same.
5. It is settled proposition of law that the preemptor, in order to succeed in a suit for pre-emption must establish that he made the three demands, Talb-e- Munwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-e- Khusumat in accordance with law. The Talb-e-Munwathibat, the first demand is usually described as the jumping demand under section 13(1) of the Act which applies to the present case defines Talb-e-Muwathibat as immediate demand by a preemptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his/her intention to exercise the. Right of pre- emption. The first demand is followed by Talb-e-Ishhad, the second demand by the preemptor which requires sending of a registered A.D. Notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses by the pre-emptors to the vendee or vendees as soon as possible after his first demand but not later than two weeks from the date the preemptor became aware of the sale confirming his/her intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed this principle in case of "Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Kh. Maqsood Ahmed and 3 others" (1998 SGMR 2227) on the basis of Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 S.C 360), the Shariat Appellate Bench had laid down the manner of exercise of Talb-e-Muwathibat as follows:-- 'jettyhead^ tL. If yt^i L-bfS-j (fyjJtiJ'- IT* [f T * ' _1 t U Jl=A j &h,t y {{URDU TEXT}} It is also settled proposition of law that if any of the three demands is missing the plaintiff/pre- emptor is not entitled for the pre-emption decree. There is no material on the record to establish that for the first meeting the preemptor declared his intention to pre-empt the suit land. The son of the plaintiff categorically stated that they went to the house of the vendor Dilbar Khan but did not utter a single word that his father has immediately declared his intention to pre-empt the suit land.
6. In a pre-emption suit the plaintiff should himself appear to substantiate his case for performance of all the requirements of pre-emption and his non-appearance would tantamount non-proving of the requirements of talbs. The contents of the plaint must be proved by his own statement in the Court, In this ease the attorney of the pontiff appeared while the plaintiff was alive neither there was any excuse or disability there is nothing on record to prove his disability for his appearance in the Court.
7. There is a concurrent finding of fact by Courts below against the petitioner and both are of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to establish the Talb-e-Muswathibat, the immediate demand in the first meeting when he received the information of sale in dispute.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any gross illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Courts calling for interference by the High Court.
9. For the fore-going reasons this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.