' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Vide registered sale-deed, dated 2-5-1995 the respondent purchased the suit-land described in the plaint for a consideration of Rs,9,00,000. On 4-6-1995 the petitioner filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. -According to him, the land had been, in fact, sold for Rs,6,50,000. He claimed to be a Shafi Sharik and Khalit. Performance of Tabls was pleaded. The respondent filed a written statement insisting that he had paid Rs,9,00,000 for the land and bore expenses in the matter of registration of the document. The other contents of the plaint were denied. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-2006 the learned trial Court decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs,9,00,000 as price and Rs,45,000 as incidental charges. The respondent filed a first appeal which has been allowed by a learned ADJ, Hafizabad, on 16-11-2006. The findings of the learned trial Court on the issue of tabls were reversed and consequently the trial Court judgment and decree was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence has been discarded only on the ground that time, date and place of making of Talb-i-Muwathibat had not been mentioned in the plaint and this renders the impugned judgment and decree to be without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, cites judgment in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) to support the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner re-joins to cite the case of Muhammad Yusuf v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and another (PLD 1968 SC 101) to state that the said decision would not be retrospective.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. It will be seen that only the matter of the Talb-i- Muwathibat has been agitated. In para.4 of the plaint, the petitioner stated that he came to know about the sale in mid May whereupon he made the first talb in the same Majlis in presence of witnesses, namely, Sadiq, Mumtaz, Bashir Ahmad and Faryad Ali. In para.6 he stated that he issued a notice under registered post on 23-5-1995. It will be seen that the time, date and place of making of the said first talb has not at all been. Stated in the plaint as held necessary in the said case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another.
4. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the said case of Muhammad Yusuf is concerned, it is true that the judgment deciding a question of law are prospective and not retrospective. However, it is equally true that as would be evident from a reading of the said case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another, various interpretations were being placed in the matter of said requirement and in the said case, a set of judgments laying down that the mentioning of time and date is mandatory were agreed to and B endorsed by the larger Bench constituted for the purpose. The learned ADJ, in fact, has relied on the case of Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315) to support his conclusions and the view expressed in the said judgment has been endorsed in the said case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another. The civil revision is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.