' DR. SAJID QURESHI, J.---The appellant filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals and 11 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Ghora Mast, Tehsil and District Islamabad, which has been purchased by the respondent vide Mutation No,853, dated 15-10-1998 for a consideration of Rs,50,000; the appellant was to get the above-said property through a pre-emption, being co-sharer of the disputed property and enjoying the right of way and flow of water. The learned trial Judge through his judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2003 dismissed the suit of the appellant. An appeal was filed before the learned Additional and District Judge, Islamabad, which was dismissed on 12-5-2004. Hence, this civil revision before this Court.
' The learned Additional and District Judge, Islamabad, had erred in law specially on the fact that he got the information of the sale on 16-12-1998, but it had been mentioned that the appellant had made Talbi-Muwathibat on 17-12-1998 at about 7-00 p.m. Along, with two witnesses. The learned ADJ had failed to realize that once information was gained, the witnesses were arranged the next day and at 7-00 p.m. The Talb-i-Muwathibat was made.
3. The learned counsel also contended that the learned ADJ, Islamabad, did not consider the information in the plaint which, it was clearly stated that the appellant came to know about the sale/purchase transaction on 16-12-1998 and that on the next day i,e, 17-12-1998 at about 7-00 p.m.
The appellant along with two witnesses; Mr. Lal Hussain and Mr. Muhammad Akbar visited the respondent on hearing the factum of sale. That he along with the above-mentioned witnesses proclaimed declared their intention to exercise the right of pre-emption and also proclaimed that he has "Zaroorat" on the suit-land purchased by the respondent. The appellant again visited the respondent on 18th of December, 1998, along with the witnesses and also offered the sale price Rs,50,000 to the respondent. Further on 19-12-1998, the appellant also sent a legal notice through counsel confirming the intention to exercise the right of pre-emption and hence he had fulfilled the three requirement of pre-requisite Talbs i,e, Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-iKhusumat, but the respondent had not heeded to the request of the appellant and his witnesses. The learned counsel relied on 2000 SCMR 329 Supreme Court of Pakistan, (Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghanni), PLD 1979 Supreme Court of Pakistan 883 (Ameer Jan v. Haji Ghulab Muhammad), 2003 CLC 229 Lahore, (Jamil Ahmad v. Liaqat Ali) and 2001 SCMR 539 Supreme Court of Pakistan, (Nadir Khan v. Itebar Khan).
4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Trial Court and ADJ, had erred in law that on mere technical ground, the suit and the appeal were dismissed. The trial Court had not read the whole evidence in toto, nor examined the witnesses and that it is not necessary to have the full facts in the actual pleadings. Relying 2000 SCMR 329, (Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani etc.), and 2001 SCMR 539, Supreme Court of Pakistan, (Nadir Khan v. Debar Khan). The learned counsel also contended that once he heard the information of sale on 16-12-1998, he immediately made Talb-i-Muwathibat on 17-12-1998 at 7-00 p.m. In his opinion the requirement of jumping demand in the meeting on 16-12-1998 had been complied with. The counsel further elaborated that in accordance with 2003 CLC 229, Lahore, (Jamil Ahmad v. Liaqat Ali), pre-emption could be made of making necessary Talbs through evidence and each and every detail of making such Talbs need not be given in the make (sic) Talb-i-Ishhad in presence of two truthful witnesses.
He argued that the requirement of law was that in the pleadings that having come to know of sale the preemptor can declare his intention to pre-empt such sale, however, material facts must be proved at trial through evidence on issues framed in that regard. It was not necessary to have evidence in the plaint. The Courts can empower to give such finding based on pleadings detail. He relied on PLD 1997 Supreme Court of Pakistan 883, (Amir Jan v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad).
4A. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the lower Court has rightly decided by dismissing the suit and the appeal and that the appellant in his plaint had written that he obtained the information of the sale on 16-12-1998 and that he made the Talb-i-Muwathibat on 17-12-1998 at 7-00 p.m,. This was not made "immediately". The counsel had placed emphasis the word "immediately" and that the appellant had not made the Talb-i-Muwathibat on the spot and the time when knowledge of the sale became apparent. The counsel argued that the delay of one day shows that the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat was not fulfilled and hence this Civil Revision should be dismissed with costs. He relied on PLD 195 Lahore 133, (Muhammad Sarwar v. Aashiq Ali), 1996 SCMR 294, Supreme Court of Pakistan, (Gul Hussain Shah v. Mulzaim Hussain Shah) and 1995 CLC 1924, (Rashid Ahmad v. Basheer Ahmad).
5. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and examined the case-law.
6. To my mind the demand of pre-emption is a right of pre-emption on the following three orders:- -
(i) Talb-i-Muwathibat.
(ii) Talb-i-Ishhad.
(iii) Talb-i-Khusumat.
' Talb-i-Muwathibat means "immediate demand" by a pre-emptor in a meeting or a sitting in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
Any words indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption are sufficient. Talb-i-Ishhad means "demand by filing a suit". I am of the opinion that when the facts of sale come within the knowledge of pre-emptor through any source, he can be and should make Talb-i-Muwathibat.
Once this has been done he should make Talb-i-Ishhad by sending a notice in writing, attesting by two truthful witnesses confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption, when a pre- emptor has satisfied to the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, he shall make Talb-i-Khusumat in the Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his right of pre-emption. The two demands of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-iIshhad, must proceed the institution of pre-emption suit and the last demand of Talb-i-Khusumat, is fulfilled by the institution of suit itself. The Talb-i- Muwathibat literally means "immediate demand" from preemption on receiving information of the sale, which comes about through knowledge passed through any source. In this case, the pre- emption suit in Islamabad is governed under the Muhammadan Law and the relevant case-law.
The case-law is very clear especially in light of PLD 1995 Lahore 133 (Muhammad Sarwar v. Aashiq Ali), in which the Talb-iMuwathibat should be on an "immediate" basis. It appears from the facts of the case that the information of the sale was on 16-12-1998 and according to the plaint the Talb-i- Muwathibat was on 17-12-1998 at 7-00 p.m. It was after a whole day and at 7-00 p.m. On the next day that Talbi-Muwathibat was made which indicates that the jumping demand was delayed for one day. The passing of one day indicates the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat was not fulfilled, which is a requirement of law in that once information of sale is received he should make Talb- iMuwathibat by declaring the pre-emption transaction with immediate effect, this was not done.
The learned ADJ, had stated that the appellant had admitted the Talb-i-Muwathibat was not made at the spot and the time, knowledge of sale was gained, rather it was made after a delay of one day. Therefore, in the situation in hand the requirement of jumping demand, in the said sitting or meeting, where the knowledge were gained, had not been complied with.
7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 12-5-2004 passed by the learned ADJ, Islamabad, and the decree, dated 29-9-2003 passed by Civil Judge, Islamabad is upheld. This Civil Revision is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.