' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption ia respect of land measuring 9 kanals, 15 marlas situated in Bhopalwala, Teshil Daska. It is common ground that the plaint in the suit does not contain particulars of date, time and place of the pronouncement of the "Talb-i-Muwathibat" by the plaintiff now represented by his legal heirs, the petitioners. That omission has been held by the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 20-6-1996 to constitute by a breach of a mandatory term of the statute rendering the suit to be not maintainable. The petitioners' appeal also failed for the non-proof of talbs vide judgment dated 3- 4-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Daska. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 17-9-2002 in the following terms:- "Learned counsel, while relying upon Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through Legal heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314, Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329, contends that the plaintiffs could not be non-suited on the ground that date, time and place, when and where the plaintiffs learnt about the sale transaction, were not specifically pleaded in the plaint."
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the meanwhile, a number of judgments by the honourable Supreme Court have examined and explained that in a plaint the provision of particulars of date, time and place of "Talb-i-Muwathibat" is a mandatory.
Requirement of law under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (`AW). A Full Bench of five learned Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court has expressed its considered view in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L. Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302 to emphasize that the word "immediate" contained in Explanation to section 13(1) of the Act make the disclosure of the said particulars in the plaint to be imperative. Likewise in Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst.Sahib Jamala and others PLD 2005 SC 977 the statutory period of limitation prescribed for sending "Talb-i-Ishhad" is to be reckoned from the date of declaration of "Talb-i-Muwathibat".
That can be done if the aforesaid Talbs are duly mentioned in the plaint. In Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Akbar Ali Khan and others v. Mukamil Shah and others 2005 SCM R 431 the Honourable Supreme Court has noticed the same ground to cause the statement of the said particulars in the plaint to be mandatory.
3. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has read from Multiline Associates v.
Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1995 SCM R 362 which is approved in Ardeshir Cowasjee and 19 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) Karachi and 4 others 1999 SCM R 2883 at page 2912 to contend that when two views taken by different Benches of equal strength of the High Court are in the field then the view taken by the earlier Bench is binding on the later Bench . On that reasoning he objects that the precedents 'mentioned in the admitting order dated 17-9-2002 could not be differed with in the subsequent view expressed by the honourable Supreme Court.
4. That is a presumptuous objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners which does not carry weight. The effect of past rulings, noted by the afore referred judgments pertains to practice and procedure to be observed by Benches of the same Court rather than a rule of precedent to be followed by other courts. On the matter of precedent laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court this Court is governed by the terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Every judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court irrespective of the size of the author Bench deserves and receives the highest respect from other courts including the. High Court. However, in a case where the Honourable Supreme Court itself notes that its earlier conflicting view omits to consider important point about the legal position decided, then it is appropriate for the High Court to follow the more recent view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the present case the view expressed in Mian Pir Muhammad (supra) PLD 2007 SC 302; Haji Muhammad Saleem (supra) PLD 2003 SC 315 and Akbar Ali and others (supra) 2005 SCM R 431 represents the considered view based upon a comprehensive appreciation of the different legal aspects and facts arising in the case. Under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, comprehensive view expressed by the Honourable Supreme Court as opined in Jamshed Ahmed Malik v. Shaukat Aziz 2007 CLC 1192.
5. As a result of the said position, default to specify details of date, time and place of "Talb-i- Muwathibat" in the petitioners' plaint constitutes a fatal defect affecting the maintainability of the petitioners' suit. The arguments of the leaned counsel for the parties remained confined to that point alone which is sufficient to decide this petition. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.