' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this civil revision under section 115 C.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Ameen son of Ghulam Muhammad, calls in question the judgments and decrees dated 11-5-2002 and 19-12-2002, respectively passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan, and Additional District Judge, Multan. Through the former judgment dated 11-5-2002 the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of respondent Khadim Hussain filed for possession of the land in dispute through pre-emption, whereas through the latter judgment and decree dated 19-12-2002, appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of the civil judge dated, 11-5-2002 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this Civil Revision are that respondent-plaintiff, being Shafi Shareek and Shafi Khaleet in the Khata, brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in the civil Court pertaining to land measuring 12 Kanals in Khavet No,14, situated at Mauza Giraywala, Tehsil and District Multan, owned by Mst. Zubaida Begum, who without notice to the plaintiff sold the same vide Mutation No,179 dated, 12-5-1998 to the petitioner for consideration of Rs,80,000, which allegedly was also the market value, but, it is alleged, in order to defeat the pre-emptive right of the plaintiff ostensible sale price of Rs,1,80,000 was got mentioned in the mutation; that the plaintiff came to know about the disputed sale on 3-9-1998 and immediately declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption; that the same day he went to the house of the vendee- defendant-petitioner along with the witnesses and asked him to return the land on receiving the actual sale price paid; that on the next day, i,e, 4-9-1998 he sent a notice attested by the witnesses to the vendee/defendant/petitioner through registered post by confirming his demand of pre- emption, to which no reply was given to the plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the averments of the plaintiff.
3. The learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of he parties framed as many as 14 issues, out of which issue No,2 is pivotal, which is to the effect, "Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of necessary Talbs? OPP". After framing the issues, evidence of the parties was recorded. Plaintiff examined Muhammad Athar as P.W.1, Abdul Aziz as P.W.2, Haji Shabbir Ahmad as P.W.3, Muhammad Ismail as P.W.5, Muhammad Sharif as P.W.6 and the plaintiff himself apps ,red as P.W.4. Documentary evidence was also produced as Exh.P.1 to P.6. The defendant-petitioner examined Sajjad Hussain as D.W.1 and he himself appeared as D.W.2. Copy of impugned mutation was also tendered in evidence by the counsel of the defendant as Exh.D.l. The learned trial Court decided the said pivotal Issue No,2 regarding performance of the required Talbs in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in his favour by observing that:- "The plaintiff came to know about the sale in dispute at the Dera of Haji Shabir and immediately upon the knowledge he declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption. The witnesses have fully supported his version. In this way Talb-i-Muwathibat seems to have been fulfilled in accordance with law. Talb-iIshhad may be made after making Talb-i-Muwathibat, as soon thereafter as possible but not later on than two weeks from the date of knowledge, by sending a notice in writing, attested by two truthful witnesses under registered cover acknowledgment due to the vendee/defendant, confirming the intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. On 13-9-1998 the plaintiff obtained the knowledge and on the next day he sent the notice as required under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, attested by two truthful witnesses under the registered cover acknowledgment due to the vend 'e. Through this notice the plaintiff confirmed his intention to exercise the right of preemption. The registered envelope and the acknowledgement due are on the record. The scribe of the notice has deposed on oath that the notice was written and attested and then sent through registered post to the vendee/defendant. The Postmaster as P.W.1 also has supported the version of the plaintiff for sending the notice through registered post.
In the circumstances, the plaintiff made Talb-i-Ishhad as required and that the discrepancies in the statements of the plaintiff and Haji Shabir Ahmad P.W.3 as mentioned above are not material and as such are ignored."
' The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants argued that both the Courts below wrongly decreed the suit of pre-emption of the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to establish the demands, i,e, Talb-e-Muathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. Further submits that to prove the Talb-e- Ishhad two witnesses were not produced who had signed the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad and the postman was also not produced to prove that notice was sent to the petitioner-defendant by the plaintiff-respondent. He submits that the findings of the learned trial Court as well as of the learned lower appellate Court on issue No,2 relating to fulfilment of Talbs were not in accordance with the evidence therefore the issue was wrongly decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and so the judgments of both the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and as such the said findings on the said issue should be set aside and pre-emption suit of the plaintiff-respondent should be dismissed. Relies on the cases reported as Muhammad Bashir and others v. 'Abbas Ali Shah 2007 SCM R 1105, Mst, Amir v. Mst. Soini 1997 M LD 2376, Muhammad Khan v.
Allah Ditta 2005 CLC 283 (Lahore) and Muhammad Rafiq v. Ghulam Murtaza 1998 M LD 292 (Lahore).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has supported the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. He submits that the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are in accordance with law based on evidence; that there is no misreading or non- reading of evidence as well as there is no irregularity or illegality committed by any of the lower Courts.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have gone through the contents of the plaint. Date is mentioned as 3-9-1998 in para 5 of the plaint, but time and place are not mentioned at what time the pre-emptor-plaintiff received information of sale. The facts which are not pleaded in the plaint, on those facts evidence cannot be produced. The learned lower appellate Court committed material irregularity in upholding the findings of the learned trial Court on issue No,2. The learned lower appellate also did not take notice that Talb-eMuwathibat was not performed according to the requirement of law. Unless and until all the ingredients, i,e, date, time and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibat are mentioned in the plaint and proved through evidence, it cannot be held that Talb-e-Muwathibat is proved. Both the Courts below committed material illegality and irregularity in decreeing the suit of the pre-emptor-plaintiff Khadim Hussain.
Plaintiff-pre-emptor failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law as reported in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302.
7. For the reasons discussed above, this civil revision is allowed and the findings of both the Courts below on issue No,2 are set aside and the pre-emption suit of the plaintiff-respondent stands dismissed with no order as to costs.