' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J. The petitioner Muhammad Salehon filed a suit for possession through pre- emption against the respondents seeking to pre-empt the sale of the suit-land by Liaquat Ali to the respondents per mutation No,1558 dated 9-1-1994. The petitioner claimed his superior right on the basis of Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar and also alleged due performance of Talbs.
' On contesting written statement, eight issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. Evidence was recorded. The learned trial Judge, Mandi Bahauddin through judgment and decree, dated 30- 6-1997 dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the performance of Talbs was not proved.
Appeal filed by the petitioner thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin through judgment and decree dated 4-9-1999. Hence the present civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the learned Courts below misread and non-read the important evidence on the record wherein the petitioner proved having duly carried out the requisites of talbs.
3. Heard.
4. The learned trial Court non-suited the petitioner on the basis of his failure to plead the date, the time and the place of exercise of Talb-e-Muwathibat on corresponding acquisition of the knowledge of the sale. The learned first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner affirming the findings of the learned trial Judge.
5. A bare perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiff pre-emptor (the petitioner) had neither pleaded nor specified the date, the time and the place of meeting C where he acquired the knowledge of the sale and purportedly exercised right of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
6. In Para-4 of the plaint, the plaintiff pre-emptor only pleaded that the moment he came to know of the sale transaction, he promptly stated in the same meeting that he had a superior right and would therefore exercise his right of pre-emption to preempt the sale transaction. He however did not plead the date, the time or the place of the meeting where he acquired the knowledge of the sale transaction and purportedly declared his intention to preempt the sale. Examination of Para-4 of the plaint also shows that the plaintiff preemptor also failed to specify the names of the informer
(s) of or the witnesses to the information of the sale transaction and performance of Talb-e- Muwathibat by him. The pleadings of the plaintiff pre-emptor were thus blank, vague and unsubstantiated. The fundamental facts to show the timely performance of Talbs under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 were absent in the plaint. The facts a plaintiff did not plead, could not be proved in the evidence. The un-pleaded facts could not be made the basis of the judgment and evidence if led upon them, was to be excluded from consideration.
7. On Court question, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to specifically E plead and state the date, the time and the place of acquisition of knowledge of the sale and performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
8. The controversy, if any, on the above referred litigated question and the issue was finally settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Fazal Din through L.Rs v. Muhammad Anayat through L.Rs"(2007 SCM R 1) wherein on the basis of "Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bukhsh" (PLD 2003 SC 315) and "Fazal Subhan v. Sahib Jamala" (PLD 2005 SC 977) and "Akber Ali Khan v. Mukamil Shah and others" (2005 SCM R 431) and is distinction to the case of "Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and two others" (2000 SCM R 329) and "Hayat Muhammad & others v.
Mazhar Hussain (2006 SCM R 1410) it was held that the date, the time and the place of making Talb- e-Muwathibat was mandatory required to be specifically stated in the plaint in order to prove the same through evidence. In the absence of such particular pleadings, a plaintiff pre-emptor must be non-suited.
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees dated 30-6-1997 and 4-9-1999 respectively passed F by the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin and the learned Additional District Judge Mandi Bahauddin. This civil revision is thus dismissed with no order as to the costs.