' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The petitioners purchased the suit-land mentioned in the plaint vide registered sale-deed, dated 22-1-1991 for a consideration of Rs,1,50,000. On 11-4-1991, the respondent filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. According to him, the land had been sold for Rs,50,000. He claimed to be Shafi-e-Shariek, Khaliet and Jar. Performance of Talbs was pleaded.
The suit was contested by the petitioners. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground of Talbs having not been proved. Learned District Judge, Jhelum allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and decreed his suit on 13-6-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgment is violative of law, later laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He relies on the case "Ahmad Hassan v.
Muhammad Aslam" (2007 SCM R 962) and "Khyber Khan and others v. Haji Malik Amanullah Khan"
(2007 SCM R 1036). Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and decree.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this C.R. It will be seen that only the matter of Talbs has been agitated. In para.3 of the plaint, it was stated by the respondent that upon acquiring knowledge of the sale he made Talb-e-Mowathibat and went to the petitioner along with the witnesses and informed him that he wants to file a pre-emption suit and he should get the actual amount and transfer the land and thereafter he served a notice.
4. Muhammad Khan, respondent, appeared as P.W.3. And stated that he had gone to patwari to get some papers and he told him that Mst. Begum Bi (vendor) had sold the land and he replied that he will file a suit. Khalid Zafar, P.W.2 has stated that he came to know about the sale two months thereafter and the respondent stated that he will file a preemption suit. Ghulam Sarwar, P.W.1 stated that the petitioner came to know two months after the sale and he said that he will file a preemption suit. I may note here that the respondent himself has not at all stated that he made Talbs in presence of said witnesses. Said Patwari, of course, has not been produced. Be that as it may, it is apparent on the face of the records that suit was filed on 11-4-1991 i,e,, about three months after the sale and the plaint is silent as to the date of sale, place where the knowledge was acquired and of course the time. So is the case with the evidence.
5. Apart from the said judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fully support his plea, a larger Bench was constituted as suggested in the case "Suba Khan and another v. Hafiz Mian Muhammad"(2007 SCM R 719) to resolve the controversy in the matter of specific statement of the date, time and place vis-a-vis the knowledge of sale. The larger Bench delivered a judgment in the case "Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through LRs, and others" (PLD 2007 SC 302) and agreed with the opinion expressed in the judgments cited above. It was held that it will be fatal to the pre-emption suit in case the date, time and place are not specifically mentioned in the plaint with reference to the knowledge of sale for the purposes of Talb-eMuwathibat.
6. C.R. Accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and A decree, dated 13-6-2000 of learned District Judge, Jhelum is set aside while that of learned trial Court, dated 11-6-1999, dismissing the suit of the respondent is restored. No orders as to costs.