' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This Civil Revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-2006 passed by Mian Muhammad Anwar Nazir, Additional District Judge, Jhang who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that vide mutation No,796, the respondents purchased land measuring 8 kanal bearing Khewat Nos.80 and 81 situated at Mausa Thatta Mahla, Tehsil and District Jhang on 26-2-1999 against a total consideration of Rs,60,000 but to defeat the right of pre-emption of the plaintiffs, a fake price of Rs,120,000 was shown in the mutation. The plaintiffs-respondents being co-shares as well as Shafi-e-Khalit filed the instant suit for possession through pre-emption on the ground that since the plaintiff have superior right of pre-emption against the vendees and have fulfilled all the Talbs as required under the law, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed in their favour.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants who submitted their written statements and raised a number of preliminary objections. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "ISSUES (viii)Whether the plaintiffs have superior rights of pre-emption qua the vendee-defendants? OPP.
(ix) Whether the plaintiffs have asserted necessary talbs as required by the law relating to pre- emption? OPP.
(x) Whether the sale price of Rs,120,000/- was fixed in good faith and actually paid? OPD.
(xi) If the above issue is not proved then what is the market value of the property? OPD.
(xii) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi? OPD.
(xiii)Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct? OPD.
(xiv) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is time barred? OPD.
(xv) Whether the defendants have suffered incidental charges, if so to what extent? OPD.
( x) Whether the suit has been improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?
OPD.
(x) Relief."
4. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions and vide judgment and decree dated 8-12-2004, the learned Trial Court, Jhang decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance amount of price of suit land within 30 days. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 34-2006. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the Courts below failed to consider that the Talb-i-Muwathibat was not fulfilled as required under the law. The learned counsel has pointed out that the respondents-plaintiffs have not mentioned in the plaint the date, place and time when they came to know about the sale of the suit land which defect is not curable under the law and both the learned lower Courts have totally ignored this factum.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents concedes that though date, time and place when the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of the suit land have not been mentioned in the plaint, yet the position has been explained by the witnesses through their statements later on.
He asserts that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts are in accordance with law and there is no legal defect in the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, the civil revision be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record available on file.
8. The only controversy between the parties is that whether non-mentioning of date, place and time in the plaint is fatal or curable. Issue No,2 pertains to the performance of talbs by the plaintiffs.
Perusal of plaint shows that in para 4, the plaintiff has only stated that on 2-6-1999, Noor Muhammad son of Manak informed him about the sale of the suit land. However, para 4 of the plaint does not speak about the time and place where the plaintiff came to know about the sale of the suit land. Similarly, the plaintiff appeared as P.W.3. During his examination-inchief, the plaintiff has not stated the place, where he was present when he was informed about the sale of the suit land. The Talb-i-Mawathibat is a mandatory provision of law which could neither be ignored nor is curable in light of the law laid down in 2009 SCM R 673, PLD 2007 SC 302 and 2008 SCM R 1682.
9. The mandatory requirement of law is that the date, time and place when the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of suit land must be incorporated in the plaint which shall be later on corroborated by the witnesses, however, such details were totally missing in the plaint and also in the statement of P.W.3. The learned Trial Court after examining B the pleadings of the parties should not have allowed the plaintiffs to lead the evidence. The learned Court should not have looked into nor he should have considered the evidence on the issues which were not part of the pleadings because the spirit of law is that all the matters shall be decided within the four corners of the pleadings and if some fact is not duly mentioned in the pleadings, the parties cannot be allowed to lead their evidence thereon, and if the evidence has been recorded, the facts, which have not been mentioned in the plaint, shall not be looked into/considered while deciding the issue.
10. In the light of the above discussion, it is prima facie clear that both the learned lower Courts have ignored the essential ingredients of Talb-i-Mawathibat and have passed the impugned judgments which are not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-4-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhang as well as the impugned judgment and decree dated 8-12-2004 passed by learned Civil Judge 2nd class, Jhang is set aside and the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs is dismissed. No order as to costs.