' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This revision petition has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree dated 18-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Kharian, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1998 passed by learned Civil Judge, Kharian, decreeing the suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff/petitioner had been reversed and the suit was dismissed for non-performance of requirement of Talbs.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against defendant-respondent (vendee) on a sale of land measuring 12 Kanals and 14 Marlas through a Mutation of sale No,1016 attested on 29-6- 1994 in favour of Mouj Din, defendant-respondent (herein) alleging in the plaint, claiming the superior right of pre-emption being co-sharers, ShafiShareek, Shafi-e-Khaleet and Shafi-e-Jar in the joint Khata of the suit-land. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent who filed his written statement, denying the averments of the plaint and from the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame various issues.
3. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the trial Court vide, judgment and decree dated 22-12-1998 decreed the suit and the defendant-respondent had impugned this judgment before the learned A.D.J., who through, impugned judgment and decree accepted the appeal and reversed the findings of the trial Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The petitioner had been non-suited by the lower appellate Court for non-fulfilment of requirement of 'Talbs'. All other issues except Issue No,2 were not contested and pressed by the parties and the lower Appellate Court had affirmed the findings of the trial Court on these issues.
6. The plaintiff-petitioner in paragraph No,3 of his plaint had deposed that he declared his intention to 'pre-empt' the suit-land, as soon as the factum of sale in dispute came into his knowledge. He had not stated in his plaint that he made his intention in the presence of the witnesses. The plaintiff while appearing in Court as P.W.4 had submitted that on 24-7-1994, Ghulam Yousaf, P.W. Informed him at about 1-00 p.m., while he was sitting in his 'Baithak' and his statement was not corroborated by P.Ws.5 and 6. Ghulam Yousaf, P.W.5 had not stated that he informed the plaintiff in the presence of Muhammad Yaqoob P.W.6 whereas said P.W.6 had categorically deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 24-7-1994 the plaintiff had summoned him after evening prayer and told him that Maoj Din has purchased the suit-land and he would preempt the same. It would mean that as soon as the plaintiff-petitioner had received the information regarding sale in dispute, he did not perform the requirement of 'Talb-eMuwathibat', which is an immediate and jumping demand. The "jumping demand" would mean immediate demand made by the pre-emptor in the same sitting and meeting without any loss of time as soon as he received the information about sale as laid down by this Court in Noor Khan's case reported as 2003 YLR 570. It is also a settled law that if 'jumping demand' is not proved by the plaintiff, second demand, Talb-e-Ishhad', if proved, would not give any benefit to him because if he sought a decree for pre-emption and failed to perform all the requirements of Talbs, would not be entitled for grant of decree as laid down in cases of Muhammad Tufail v. Munir Ahmad PLD 2001 SC 13; Muhammad Hassan v. Shafiduddin PLD 1995 Quetta 29 and Salma v. Manzur Hussain 1996 CLC 623.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted to establish from the record the making of "Talb-e-Muwathibat" could not respond. Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.