Mst. Bibi Aisha has brought the instant revision petition against Abdul Latif and others through which the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2004 of learned Additional District Judge-I, Lakki Marwat in Civil Appeal/Cross Objections No, 20/13 of 2002 and Civil Appeal No, 19/13 of 2002 filed by Respondent No, 1 against the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge-I, Lakki Marwat in Suit No, 4/1 decided on 20.5.2002 in favour of the petitioner was set-aside by the learned Appellate Court, has been challenged.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit for declaration in Madd "Alif' of the plaint to the effect that a house measuring two kanals, or whatever correct area is proved duly described in the site-plan through A, B, C & D, entered in registered deed & No, 146 dated 18.8.1994 situated in Shehbaz Khel, Lakki Marwat, is owned and possessed by the plaintiff- petition and the sale of a partial area out of this property vide Registered Deed No, 146 dated 18.8.1994 with respect to 08 marlas is based on fraud, collusion, misrepresentation and is not binding on the plaintiff-petitioner. In Madd "Bay", it was prayed that the plaintiff-petitioner, in the alternative, is entitled to the right of pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership continuity and participator in immunities and appendages with all rights appurtenance sold through registered deed dated 18.8.1994.
3. Defendants were summoned who submitted written statement contesting the allegations contained in the plaint which was reduced to the following issues by the learned trial Court :--
1. Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
2. Whether the suit is within time?
3. Whether the plaintiff has waived off his right of preemption?
4. Whether the plaintiff has not fulfilled the legal formalities of Section 13 of NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987?
5. Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of preemption?
6. Whether the suit is incompetent in its present form?
7. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and was actually paid by the defendant/vendee in lieu of suit land?
8. What is the market value of the suit-land?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for in Relief "A"?
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession through pre-emption as prayed for?
11. Relief.
4. The parties then produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and Mr. Ashfaq Taj, Civil Judge-I, Lakki Marwat vide Suit No, 4/1 of 1994 decided on 20.5.2002, granted a partial decree with respect to claim of pre-emption while the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration was refused.
5. Abdul Latif Khan, Defendant-Respondent No, 1 herein, filed Civil Appeal No, 19/13 of 2002 while Mst.
Bibi Aisha petitioner, being partly aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, filed Civil Appeal No, 20/13 of 2002 and the learned appellate Court, by consolidated judgment in Civil Appeal No, 19/13 of 2002 decided on 27.5.2004, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the data available on the record, accepted the appeal of the Defendant-Respondent No, 1 bearing No, 19/13 of 2002 and the appeal of Mst. Bibi Aisha was also accepted with respect to superior right of pre-emption and on acceptance of the appeal of Abdul Latif, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set-aside on the only ground that the plaintiff Mst. Bibi Aisha has not mentioned the date, time and place as well as the name of informer in her plaint and thus, her suit was dismissed on the ground of non-fulfillment of Islamic demands in accordance with Section 13 of the NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987 and as interpreted by the superior Courts in various judgments.
6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Khan that the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is not warranted under the law as the date, time and place was duly mentioned in the notice Talb-e-Ishhad issued to the defendant- defendant which was duly exhibited and brought on record as Ex.P.W.6/1 on the file and this was exhibited without any objection from the opposite side. It was also argued that once the ingredients are, mentioned in the notice Talb-e-Ishhad with respect to the date, time and place and the name of informer, then there is no need to mention the same in the plaint. Reliance in this respect was placed on Nadir Khan Vs. Itebar Khan (2001 SCM R 539) and Muhammad Ilyas Vs. Ghulam Muhammad and another (1999 SCM R 958).
7. As against this, Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that neither the date, time and place and the name of the informer is mentioned in the plaint nor in the notice Talb-e-Ishhad. It was further submitted that the scribe of the notice had not been produced. The notice was written on 08.12.1991 but instead of sending the same from Lakki Marwat, it was registered in Pezu on 10.12.1991. Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence produced by the plaintiff was contradictory and neither Talb-e- Muwathibat nor Talb-e-Ishhad has been proved in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984.
8. I have gone through the record of the case and heard the valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
9. Perusal of the record shows that neither the date, time, place and the name of the informer is mentioned in the plaint nor the same has been mentioned in notice Talb-e-Ishhad. In the notice Talb-e-Ishhad which was issued on 08.2.1994 only this fact has been mentioned that the plaintiff came to know regarding the impugned sale six days prior to the issuance of the notice Ex.P.W.6/1.
10. It is now settled principle of law laid by the apex Court that date, time, place and the name of the informer must be mentioned in the plaint and the non-mentioning of the same will render the right of preemption of the plaintiff-pre-emptor extinguished under Section 13 of the NWFP Pre- emption Act, 1987 as laid down in the dictum reported in Mian Pir Muhammad and another. Vs. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others (PLD 2007 SC 302).
11. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is strictly in accordance with law, justice and is based on the correct appreciation of evidence. No misreading or non-reading has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in the instant revision petition which is dismissed.