'KHALIL AHMAD,J---Respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 8-kanals 3-Marlas purchased by the petitioner through Mutation No,1013, dated 30-11-1992 for a consideration of Rs,80,000. They claimed that they were co-sharers in the disputed land and that their water course and passage-way were common and that they on coming to know about the sale at once declared to exercise their right of pre-emption in presence of the witnesses and that they performed the necessary requisite talabs. The suit was contested by the petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge framed issues and after recording of evidence vide judgment and decree dated 12-12-1996 dismissed the suit of the respondents. Respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21-6-2000. Hence, this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court is against law and facts and the same is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence. He has relied on PLD 2007 SC 302 to contend that since date, time and place has not been mentioned in the plaint and as such the suit is to be dismissed on this score.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314 to contend that plaintiff could not be non-suited on the ground that date, time and place and the fact that when and where the plaintiff learnt about the sale transaction, were not specifically pleaded in the plaint.
He has also relied on Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and two others 2000 SCM R 329 to contend that the ruling that requirements of Talab-I-Muwathibat could not be fulfilled unless details, particulars, date, time and place were specifically mentioned in the plaint and the names of the persons in whose presence such Talab was made was repelled. Further argued that in case reported as Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others 1995 SCM R 362 it was held that earlier judgment of equal Bench in the High Court on the same point is binding upon the second Bench. If, however, a contrary view has to be taken then request for constitution of larger Bench should be made. Learned counsel further relied upon the cases of 2007 SCM R 719, 2004 YLR 865 and 2007 SCM R 1295.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The latest view on the subject in the case reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302 is that it would be mandatory to mention in plaint the date, place and time of performance of Talab-i-Muwathibat because from such date the time provided by statute, i.e, 14 days, could be calculated. If there was no mention of date, place and time of Talab-iMuwathibat, then it would be very difficult to give effect fully to section 13(3) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and there could be every possibility that instead of allowing letter of law to remain in force fully, pre-emptor might attempt to get a latitutde by claiming any date of performance of Talab-i-Muwathibat in his statement in Court and then on the basis of the same tried to justify the delay if any, occurring in performance of Talab-e-Ishhad.
'In PLD 2007 SC 302 the august Supreme Court approved earlier view of the apex Court reported as Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bukhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Fazal Subhan and others v. Mst.
Sahib Jamila and others PLD 2005 SC 977 in which date, place and time in the plaint were considered necessary to establish the performance of Talab-i-Muwathibat and also the date of issuance of notice of TalabI-Ishhad in terms of S.13; Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. In 2007 SCM R 1295 in review petition it was held that the aforesaid judgment, i.e, PLD 2007 SC 302 was decided on 12 December, 2006 and the judgment under review was passed on 6-9-2006 and as such the same was prospective in nature and could not be applied with retrospective effect.
6. For what has been discussed above the latest view of the august Supreme Court is to prevail and following the dictum of the apex Court reported in PLD 2007 SC 302 the revision petition is accepted and the suit of the petitioner in which date, place and time of Talab-i-Muwathibat and also the A date of issuance of notice of Talab-eIshahad are not mentioned is dismissed. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 21-6-2000 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.