' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge III-Class, Mailsi vide his judgment and decree, dated 28-3-1991 and the judgment, dated 23-6-1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a pre-emption suit on 27-4-1989 against the respondent to pre-empt the property in dispute. In the civil suit the petitioner asserted that after getting the knowledge of the sale of the property in dispute vide mutation, dated 30-4-1988, he went to the respondent on 26-3-1989 along with Rab Nawaz, Zia-ul- Qamar and Muhammad Ramzan and demanded the respondent to accept his superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner appeared as his own witness (P.W.1) and had stated that the sale. Had taken place a year before the pre-emption suit was filed and that the petitioner had gone to the house of the respondent twice along with a Panchaiyat. The petitioner also produced Rab Nawaz as P.W.2., who stated that after the sale of the property in dispute he had accompanied the petitioner and had gone to the defendant/respondent twice with an offer that he should accept the superior right of pre emption of the petitioner but he did not accept. The respondent appeared as D.W.1. As a sole witness and denied the superior right, of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that issue No,6 viz "Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption?" has been decided wrongly as the petitioner is a co-sharer in the Khewat, out of which the property in dispute was sold. The learned counsel further contends that a separate issue with regard to the Talbs having not been framed, a gross miscarriage of justice has been occasioned to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2007 SCM R 221.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Talbs having not been proved on the record in the evidence, therefore, the pre-emption suit was rightly dismissed by both the learned lower Courts.
5. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the record.
6. The bare reading of the civil suit shows that Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad have not been mentioned in accordance with law in the plaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that date, time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat have to be clearly mentioned in the plaint. Furthermore, even in the evidence of the petitioner and P.W.2. "Rab Nawaz", there is no clear cut reference to date, time and place of Talb-iMuwathibat and notice has not been sent within 14 days fulfilling the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad. Rather the requirements of Talb-iMuwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad are entirely lacking in the pleadings and the evidence of the petitioner. I am fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the following cases:--
(i) 2007 SCM R 1 Fazal Din v. Muhammad Inayat
(ii) PLD 2003 SC 315 Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh
(iii) PLD 2005 SC 977 Fazal Subhan v. Sahib Jamala ' Paras Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of Haji Muhammad Saleem's case (supra) are reproduced below:-- "(15) This is a clear indication of compulsion on the prospective preemption that he has to make Talb-i-Muwathibat in between the period of his having received the information in the Majlis and the dispersal of the Majlis. Beyond such limitation the Talb if exercised would be invalid. The second step is that of Talb-iIshhad which has to be completed within 15 days after the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. A pre-emptor can be non-suited for non-performance of Talb-i-Ishhad as well and the performance of the letter is to be linked with the performance of the former. The third one is Talb-i-Khasumat which is the filing of a pre-emption suit and that too within a period of 120 days.
(16) It is a settled principle of law that in case of involvement of limitation of any kind the plaintiff has to specify the date and time of the commencement of limitation or the knowledge of the plaintiff in specific so that the limitation is computed accordingly. It has never been made permissible in the realm of civil law that a plaintiff who does not disclose the point of time to his knowledge about the accrual of cause of action, he could be accommodated subsequently in the evidence to satisfy the same. In our view, it is important to tell the date and time of the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint so as to prove the immediate exercise thereof and also as to whether he performed Talb-i-Muwathibat in the same meeting and before the dispersal thereof.
(17) The date and time is important to be mentioned in the pleadings because therefrom the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad has to be computed so as to be within 15 days as mentioned earlier, in civil cases in general the point of time qua the accrual of knowledge requires to be mentioned in specific so that nothing is invented during evidence as an afterthought. The cases of pre- emption should not be an exception to the general law and the day and time of performance of Talb-i- Muwathibat which simultaneous with the accrual of knowledge of transaction should be mentioned in the pleadings so-that, at the first instance the immediacy of the Talb-i-Muwathibat is appreciated and at the second instance the limitation qua the performance of Talb-iIshhad is calculated. This aspect has never been argued in any case before this Court where the view happens to be expressed to the contrary. Conceding, of course, that the material constituting evidence may or may not be mentioned in the pleadings."
7. So far as second point of framing an independent issue of Talbs is concerned, suffice it to say that the question of Talbs having been answered fully by the learned lower Courts on the basis of evidence and pleadings and the petitioners, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
8. Besides the petitioner has not taken up this ground in the memorandum of appeal before the lower appellate Court. It is settled principle of law so laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the ground which has not been taken before the lower Courts cannot be taken at the stage of revision petition.
9. It is noteworthy to mention that the parameters of revisional jurisdiction are well defined in PLD 1959 PC 26 which are as. This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters:
(1) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (2) that the case is one in which the Court out to exercise jurisdiction; and (3) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact of law."
The same view has been reiterated in 2008 SCM R 452 "Abdul Ghafoor v. Kaloo. It is settled law that High Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C., unless and until the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact by misreading or non-reading of fact or in violation of any principle laid down by the superior Courts. There is no misreading or non-reading of record in this case.
10. In sequel thereof, I find no force in this revision petition, which E is Dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.