' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, J.--- This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15-4-2008 passed by a learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Civil Revision No,285 of 2006, filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Additional District Judge, Jhelum was maintained.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that land measuring 2 Kanals, 12 Marlas situated in village Pandori, Tehsil Dinna, District Jhelum was transferred by Mst. Daulat Begum and two others, in favour of the respondent, vide Mutation No,2867 dated 6-12-2000, for a consideration of Rs,7,00,000 (seven lac). The petitioner while residing in U.K., on 5-3-2001, came to know about the said transaction through a telephonic call made by Muhammad Saeed, P.W, in presence of Adalat Khan, P.W. The petitioner immediately made Talb-i-Muwathibat being Shafi Shareek and Shafi Jar.
He also sent Special Power of Attorney in favour of Muhammad Saeed for fulfilment of Talb-i- Ishhad, filing of suit and recording evidence on Talb-i-Muwathibat. The Attorney, Muhammad Saeed, sent notice of Talb-i-Ishhad to the respondent on 10-3-2001 which was served upon the respondent on 14-3-2001 through Muhammad Basharat and Muhammad Aslam as the respondent was settled in Denmark. Thereafter, the petitioner on 22-3-2003 filed suit for pre-emption before the Civil Judge, Jhelum, which was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 8-7-2004. In appeal the learned Additional Judgment, Jhelum after hearing the arguments of both the parties remanded the case to the trial Court for re-writing of judgment covering all the issues. After remand the learned Civil Judge, Jhelum, again decreed the suit on 26-2-2005 in favour of the petitioner, in 'lieu of Rs,7,00,000 with incidental charges amounting to Rs,28,000. The respondent challenged the said decree by way of an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum, who, vide his judgment and decree dated 6-3-2006 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Revision Petition No,285 of 2006 before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that High Court has not decided the revision petition on merits rather dismissed the same on technical ground, in view of the judgment reported as Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad, PLD 2007 SC 302, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside; that the petitioner in the plaint has mentioned the date and place of making the Talb-i-Muwathibat but only the time has not been mentioned which is a mere irregularity, hence the petitioner could not have been non-suited on this ground alone; that the judgment in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad (supra) was announced on 12-12-2006, whereas, the instant case was instituted on 22-3-2001, therefore, the judgment cannot operate retrospectively.
4. Mr. Gulzarin Kiani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the judgment passed in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad (supra) it is necessary for the plaintiff to mention the time, date and place for performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat in the plaint and in case of non-mentioning of any of the said information, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case minutely, with their assistance.
6. It is well settled that the mentioning of date, place and time in the plaint regarding Talb-i- Muwathibat in a suit for pre-emption, is sine quo non because in the absence of proper date, place and time, the time provided in section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 for making Talb-i- Ishhad cannot be calculated correctly. The said controversy was set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court comprising five Honorable Judges in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad (supra), whereby after considering almost all the case-law available on the subject, it was unequivocally laid down that the mentioning of date, place and time regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat, in the plaint of a suit for pre-emption, was mandatory. Relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience:--- "Now we would consider the two judgments pronounced by this Court by larger Benches of equal strength in the cases of Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329 decided on 27-10-1999 and Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314 decided on 15-11-1999, wherein the consensus was that in view of the law of pleadings, it is not necessary to give the details including the date, place and time of performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. With utmost respect it is observed that while expressing the above view this Court did not take into consideration in detail the importance and implication of the word immediate as has been provided in Explanation I to section 13 of Act, 1991 otherwise there was every possibility of arriving at the view which we are intending to take in this case. However, we agree and endorse the view taken in both the judgments that there is no necessity of mentioning the name of witnesses because then it would be a departure from the ordinary law of pleading as provided in Order VI, rule 5, C.P.C. As evidence is not required to be noted in the pleadings and only necessary details are to be furnished for the purpose of making out a prima facie case to establish that a cause of action has accrued for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for the redressal of grievance. Subsequently, a number of judgments were delivered including in the cases of 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, wherein it was held that furnishing the date, time and place in the plaint is necessary to establish the performance of "Talb-iMuwathibat". Therefore, we endorse the view taken in the judgments and approve 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."
' Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is devoid of force.
7. As to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding applicability of the above referred case i,e, Mian Pir Muhammad (supra), on the pending cases filed before the pronouncement of the said judgment, it may be mentioned here that proposition in hand stands answered by this Court in the case of Mst. Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another, PLD 2008 SC 559, wherein, it was held that the requirement of mentioning the date, place and time in the plaint is also essential even in the pending cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-- "According to the dictum laid down by the larger bench of this Court mentioned above, the requirement of Talbs with requisite details in the plaint is also essential even in the pending cases."
' Thus this contention too, has no force.
8. In the instant case, in para.2 of the plaint, the petitioner has only mentioned the date and place but the time of making the Talb-iMuwathibat has not been stated therein we are, therefore of the opinion that the learned Judge in the High Court has rightly declined to interfere with order of dismissal of the suit by the Additional District Judge, Jhelum dated 6-3-2006. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.