' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---This civil revision has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 29-8-2002 passed by the learned appellate Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent a minor filed a suit for pre-emption through her real mother namely Riaz Bibi against the petitioners, Through the suit the respondent pre-empted the transaction of sale dated 27-6-96 Mutation No,1840 Irshad Bibi etc. Were the owner of property, they sold the said land to petitioner against consideration of Rs,5,15,000. The respondent pre-empted the sale on the ground of Sharik Khata, Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar. The defendants petitioners filed the written statement and the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant? OPP
(2) Whether the ostensible sale price of Rs,15,000 was fixed in good faith or actually paid? OPD
(3) If issue No,2 is not proved what was market value of suit land at the time of sale? OPPs
(4) Whether plaintiff' validly performed necessary talabs in exercise of right of pre-emption? OPP
(5) Whether defendant is entitled to receive any special costs from the plaintiff, if so, how much?
OPD
(6) Whether plaint is deficient court-fee, if so, what is correct valuation? OPD
(7) Whether defendant is entitled to receive any incidental charges of impugned sale, if so, to what extent? OPD
(8) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(9) Whether plaintiff is estopped to file this suit? OPD
(10) Whether the plaintiff has filed the suit without valid appointment of next defendant/guardian?
OPD
(11) Relief
3. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence the learned Civil Court 2-12-2000 dismissed the suit holding that Talabs have not been proved and decided issue No,4 against the respondents.
The respondent/plaintiff assailed judgment and decree through an appeal, which was allowed by the appeal Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-8-2002, hence the present revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8- 2002 is against facts and law and suffers from material illegalities and irregularities. The finding of learned trial Court on Issue No,4 are outcome of misreading and non-reading of record. The reasons given by the learned Civil Court on issue No,4 were based on evidence but the learned appeal Court has failed to appreciate the reasons given by the learned trial Court. He submits that no date, month and time is mentioned in the plaint, nor proved through evidence and the learned appeal Court has only condoned this legal. Defect on a single ground that the petitioner is an old illiterate lady. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Superior Court in Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan (1995 SCM R 1510). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Aamir Shah v. Ziarat Gul (1998 SCM R 593), Malik Muhammad Akram v. Khuda Bakhsh (2000 CLC 79), Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Sharif (1985 CLC 2353) and Faqir Muhammad and others v. Abdul Moman and others (PLD 2003 SC 594).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned appeal Court and submits that the Talabs in terms of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act has been proved and as such the impugned judgment and decree is in accordance with law and fact.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Para 5 of the plaint shows that the respondent has given the date of her knowledge, day and time. She has asserted that she came to know through Batti Khan son of Rehmat about the pre- empted sale and immediately announced to exercise the right of pre-emption on behalf of the minor son on the basis of Shafi Sharif, Shafi !Chant and Shafi Jar. She issued notice of Talab-i- Ishhad through registered A.D. She annexed with the plaint the receipt of post office, receipt of acknowledgement, receipt of notices and photo copies of notices and disclosed the name of two truthful witnesses i.e, Batti Khan son of Rehmat Khan caste Jat Gondal Resident of Badsha Pur and Aswa r Shah son of Habib Shah caste Syed resident of Shamhari Tehsil Malikwal. The evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff are Batti Khan P.W.2 and Aswar Shah P.W.3. The age of Mst.
Riaz Bibi the mother of minor was shown as 50 yeaRs, She deposed in her statement that Batti Khan told her about 6'0 clock in the evening about the pre-empted sale, when she was sitting in her house. On 13the she went to Mandi Baha-ud-Din in the office of Ch. Farooq Ahmed Advocate and got prepared two notices and affixed her thumb impression thereon and then dispatched the notices to the petitioneRs, All other witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 have corroborated the statement of P.W.1. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that Talab-i-Ishhad has been proved but the respondents/plaintiff has failed to prove Talab-i-Mowasbat. The learned appeal Court came to the conclusion that from the evidence produced by the parties Talab-iMowasbat has also been proved as the day, time and month along with two truthful witnesses as mentioned in the plaint.
8. Now it is settled that pre-emptor has to mention the date, time A and the venue of making the Talabs in the plaint, the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the time, day, month and the name of two truthful witnesses is not mentioned in the plaint. This evidence was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. No doubt P. W.1 the mother of minor pre-emptor has not specifically mentioned in statement the month of pre-empted sale. She has just stated that when she came to know it was 12 noon and she went to the Advocate's office on 13th. If we read this statement with the contents of para. 5 of plaint it is clear that she has fulfilled the requirements of Talab-i-Mowasbat. Petitioners have not assailed the findings of learned Civil Court about Talab-i- Ishhad and has even not assailed finding of any other issue. The appeal Court after re- scanning the evidence has come to the conclusion that Talab-i-Mowasbat has also been proved.
9. No doubt the law of pre-emption is a special law and the Talabs in terms of section 13 should be proved without any slightest doubt. In the present case the Talabs have been proved any shadow of doubt and as such the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted where the Talab-i-Ishhad not proved. The judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner specifically find mentioned that if the day, time and names of two truthful witnesses is not mentioned in the plaint it is a fatal for the pre-emptor but in this case all these are mentioned in the plaint.
10. In view of above, I am in full agreement with the findings of learned appeal court and as such dismissed this revision petition with no order as to costs.