' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Qua the sale of land vide mutation No,786, dated 17-6-1990, the petitioner had instituted a suit for pre-emption which was dismissed by the trial Court on 14-11- 1994. His appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 2-11-1999. This is revision petition by the pre-emptor-plaintiff.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The essential controversy in issue was as to performance of Talbs. It was issue No,2. Besides the concurrent finding by the Courts below that the petitioner, plaintiff had failed to perform the Talbs in accordance with law, the petitioner is not likely to succeed in view of the latest declaration a law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302. By reiterating the view taken in Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others PLD 2005 SC 977, it was held that "a plaint wherein the date, place and time of Talb-i-Muwathibat and date of issuing the notice of performance of Talb-i-Ishhad in terms of section 13 of the Act is not provided it would be fatal for the preemption suit." Similar view is found in Fazal Din through L.Rs, v. Muhammad Anayat through L.Rs, (2007 SCM R 1), Nawab Din through LRs, v. Faqir Sain (2007 SCM R 401), Mst. Kharla Bibi v. Mst. Zakia Begum and 2 others (2007 SCM R 515), Mst. Lalan Bibi and others v. Muhammad Khan and others (2007 SCM R 1193) and Abdul Rehman v. Haji Ghazan Khan (2007 SCM R 1491). The averments made in the plaint were silent as to the place, date and timing of acquiring knowledge about the sale of land. His version that Muhammad Yasin had informed him about the sale on 12-8-1990 lacks essential particulars and the requisites for the performance of Talbs in accordance with law. Clearly, therefore, the plaintiff/ pre-emptor in this case had failed to fulfil the requisite conditionalities of making Talbs whose mere assertion as to performance of Talbs and making of some improvements in evidence was not enough. According to the above pronouncements of the apex Court, such a loose and indefinite averment made in the plaint does- not fulfil the necessary requirement of law. Due to non-performance of Talbs, the superior right to pre-empt the suit land, if any, stood extinguished in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
' As a result of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.