' IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, J.---The petitioners assail the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned subordinate Courts dated 18-1-2002 and 21-8-2002, whereby the suit for possession through pre- emption filed by the petitioners was dismissed initially by the learned Civil Judge, Narowal and later by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal.
2. Land measuring 41 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Gangore Tehsil and District Narowal was sold through registered sale-deed on 5-11-1995 for a consideration of Rs,3,360,000 in favour of the respondents. The petitioners allegedly came to know about the said sale on 28-2- 1996 through Sultan Ali s/o Wazir Ali resident of Village Harpal. They allegedly pronounced Talb-e- Muwathibat in the same sitting. Subsequently, they dispatched notices of Talb-e-Ishhad through registered post AD on 29-2-1996 to the respondents. These were allegedly attested by Faqir Hussain, Sultan Ali and Professor Qamar Munir. On 3-3-1996, the petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The respondents contested the suit. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed 10 issues. Issue No,3 is material for the purpose of determination of this petition, which is reproduced below:-- "Whether the plaintiffs performed Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-eIshhad as envisaged by law? OPP.
' The petitioners produced Muhammad Amin, Halqa Patwari P.W.1, Ashiq Hussain, P.W.2, Sultan Ahmad P.W.3, Professor Qamar Munir P.W.4, Malik Ghulam Abbas P.W.5 and Ashiq Hussain P.W.6. In addition to other documents, the petitioners produced postal receipts Exh.P4 to Exh.P9 and notices of Talb-e-Ishhad mark A to Mark A-5. In rebuttal Jan Muhammad appeared as D.W.1 and Haji Muhammad Yousaf Lumbardar appeared as D.W.2. The respondents also produced some documentary evidence.
3. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18-1-2002, which was upheld in appeal on 21-8-2002 filed before the learned Additional District Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned subordinate Courts erred in law in holding that the evidence produced by the petitioners lacked details of place, time and members of Majlis, in which Talb-i-Muwathibat was pronounced. He submits that P.W.3 had mentioned all three things in his statement and the same was sufficient compliance of disclosing details of date, time and place and the members of Majlis in which Talb-e-Muwathibat was pronounced.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment and decrees of the learned subordinate Courts.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record with their assistance. Section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act provides as follows:-
(13) Demand of pre-emption---(1) The right of pre-emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person makes demands of preemption in the following orders namely:---
(a) "Talb-e-Muwathibat".
(b) "Talb-e-Ishhad" and
(c) "Talb-e-Khusumat".
' Explanation.---"Talb-e-Muwathibat means immediate demand by a pre-emptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
' Note. Any work indicative of intention to exercise the right of preemption.
(II) "Talb-e-Ishhad" means demand by establishing evidence.
(III) "Talb-e-Khusumat" means demand by filing suit.
(2) When the fact of sales comes within the knowledge of a pre-emptor through any source, he shall make Talb-e-Muwathibat.
(3) Where a pre-emptor has made Talb-e-Muwathibat under subsection (2), he shall as soon thereafter as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge make Talb-e- Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgment due, to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption: ' Provided that in areas where owing to lack of post offices facilities it is not possible for the pre- emptor to give registered notice, he may make Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses.
(4) Where a pre-emptor has satisfied the requirements of Talb-eMuwathibat under subsection (2), and Talb-e-Ishhad under subsection (3) he shall make Talb-e-Khusumat in the Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his right of pre-emption."
7. It is evident from the provisions of section 13 of reproduced above and the recent judgments, of the Apex Court that Talb-e-Muwathibat connotes a jumping demand. Talb-e-Muwathibat has been interpreted to mean immediate demand by a pre-emptor. As Explanation-1 to section 13 of the Act provides, Talb-e-Muwathibat means immediate demand by a preemptor. Therefore, it is necessary to find out the exact meaning and connotation of the word immediate to determine the period or time within which Talb-e-Muwathibat is to be made by pre-emptor after coming to know of the sale. The definition and meaning of the word "immediate" has been considered by the Courts in several cases. In Noor Khan v. Ghulam Qasim 2003 YLR 570, this Court while deciding the case arising out of a preemption suit held that the word "immediate" would mean to act immediately, suddenly or a sudden rise or moment. The Court also took into consideration the meaning of jumping demand and observed that it would mean immediate demand made by the pre-emptor in the same meeting and sitting without any loss of time as soon as the pre-emptor received information about the sale. In Muhammad Ali v. Allah Bakhsh 2004 CLC 1949, the word "immediate" was interpreted to mean doing of a thing at once and without any delay.
8. A perusal of para 4 of the plaint indicates that the petitioner came to know about the sale on 28- 2-1996. It is alleged in the said paragraph that the petitioners expressed their intention to file a suit for pre-emption in the same gathering immediately. It is, however, evident from the perusal of the plaint specially para 4 that it did not specifically mention either the place or time at A which Talb- e-Muwathibat was performed. It has been held in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others PLD 2007 SC 302 as follows:- "Now we would consider the two judgments pronounced by this Court by larger Benches of equal strength in the cases of Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329 decided on 27-10-1999 and Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another 2000 SCM R 314 decided on 15-11-1999, wherein the consensus was that in view of the law of pleadings, it is not necessary to give the details including the date, place and time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. With utmost respect it is observed that while expressing the above view this Court did not take into consideration in detail the importance and implication of the word immediate as has been provided in Explanation -I to section 13 of Act 1991 otherwise there was every possibility of arriving at the view which we are intending to take in this case. However, we agree and endorse the view taken in both the judgments that there is no necessity of mentioning the name of witnesses because then it would be a departure from the ordinary law of pleading as provided in Order VI, rule 5, C.P.C. As evidence is not required to be noted in the pleadings and only necessary details are to be furnished for the purpose of making out a prima facie case to establish that a cause of action has accrued for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for the redressal of grievance. Subsequently, a number of judgments were delivered including in the cases of Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2003 SC 315 and Fazal Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others PLD 2005 SC 977 wherein it was held that furnishing the date and time and place in the plaint is necessary to establish the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. Therefore, we endorse the view taken in the judgments and approve that plaint wherein the date, place and time of Talb-e-Muwathibat and date of issuing the notice of performance of Talb-e-Ishhad in terms of section 13 of the Act is not provided it would be fatal for the pre-emption suit."
9. The law laid down by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mian Pir Muhammad's case is fully attracted and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noticed that in addition to glaring and unexplainable discrepancies relating to date, time and place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and total failure on the part of the petitioners to prove Talb-e- Ishhad, it is ex facie evident in light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan that the plaint in the suit suffered from a fatal defect insofar as it did not expressly disclosed date, time and place, when Talb-e-Muwathibat was performed. Consequently, the entire superstructure sought to be built on the assertion that Talb-e-Muwathibat was validly performed falls to the ground. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the learned subordinate Courts. Further he has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature that may take the case of the petitioners outside the ambit of the law laid down by the Apex Court discussed above. I find that the learned subordinate Courts have carefully appraised the evidence and applied the correct principles of law to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further there is no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned subordinate Courts in arriving at these conclusions.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that this petition does not have any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.