JUDGMENT ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---The plaintiff /respondent Instituted a suit for pre-emption against the petitioners/ defendants regarding the agricultural land measuring 24 kanals, 18 marlas sold by Mr. Haider son of Muttali in favour of the petitioners through Mutation No.2523 dated 30-8- 1994 for Rs.1,80,000 as sale price. The said suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants, who filed their written statement and out of pleadings of the parties as many as seven issues were framed. The parties led their respective evidence and the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-10-2001 proceeded to dismiss the suit. The said judgment and decree were assailed through an appeal which was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 29-10-2001 were set aside and the suit of the appellant was decreed through the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-3-2003. Hence this revision petition.
2. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners/defendants are that although the respondent/plaintiff mentioned the date Of making talb-e-muwathibat in the plaint but he could not specifically mention the time and the place where the talb-emuwathibat was made and omission to mention any of the three particulars i.e. Tune, date and place in the plaint, is fatal to the suit for pre-emption. According to him, the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his right of pre-emption and the appellate Court allowed him to produce the additional evidence, to fill up the lacuna and also to make up deficiency. According to him, the claim of respondent/plaintiff being contiguous owner of the suit property could not be proved and that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 2007 SC 302) it is now settled that non-mentioning of any of the three particulars in the plaint i.e. Time, date and place is fatal to the suit of preemption and on this score alone the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the respondent are that although the respondent/plaintiff has not mentioned the time and the place where. He came to know about the sale and he made talb-emuwathibat but these facts have been-mentioned by the P.Ws. In their statements. According to, him, the plaintiff had mentioned the date on which he made the demand, the purpose for which the judgment in Mian Pir Muhammad required the mentioning of the particulars in the plaint had been fulfilled. It is submitted that the appellate Court did not commit any illegality while allowing the respondent/ plaintiff to adduce additional evidence for the purpose of proving claim of his being contiguous owner of the property. The counsel for the respondent with the help of oral and documentary evidence contended that the plaintiff established the right of pre-emption on the ground of contiguity.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record especially the plaint perused. The respondent asserts in para No.4 of the plaint that he came to know about the sale on 27-9-1994 through one Ghulam Rasool. The relevant portion thereof is as under: -- {{URDU TEXT}} The respondent/plaintiff, although mentioned the date of making talb-e-muwathibat but he omitted to mention time and place where such declaration was made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Mian Pir Muhammad v. Faqir Muhammad (PLD 2007 SC 302) held:-- "that a plaint wherein the date, place and time of talb-emuwathibat 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also held in case titled Khyber Khan and another v. Haji Malik Aman Ullah Khan (2007 SCM R 1036) as under:-- "The plaintiff had, though mentioned in the plaint the date of making talb-e-Muwathibat but had failed to specify in the plaint the time and place where talb was made. Omission to mention any one of the three particulars in the plaint would in view of the rule in Mian Pir Muhammad ' s case resulted in dismissal of a preemption suit. Resolution of this question does not require any factual determination, as the same is determinable from the bare reading of the plaint."
It has been held in Mst. Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain, and another (PLD 2008 SC 559) as under:- "It is necessary that as soon as the pre-emptor acquires knowledge of sale of pre-empted property, he would make immediate demand about his desire and intention to assert his right of pre-emption without slightest loss of time and after making Talb-e-Muwathibat in terms of section 13(2) of the Act, the pre-emptor has another legal obligation to perform i.e. Talb-e-Ishhad as soon as possible after making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, but not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge/performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. The mentioning of -date, place and time in the plaint in a suit for preemption is mandatory regarding Talb-e-Muwathibat because from such date the time provided by the statute for making of Talb-e-Ishhad i.e. 14 days, can be calculated. If there is no mention of date, place and time of knowledge about sale and making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, then it would be very difficult to give effect to section 13(3) of the Act and there is every possibility that instead of allowing letter of law to remain in force, the preemptor may attempt to get a latitude by claiming any date of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in his statement in court and then on the basis of the same, try to justify the delay, if any, occurred in the performance of Talb-e- Ishhad. Performance of both these Talbs is a sine qua non for getting a decree in a pre-emption suit. This Court has approved the view that a plaint wherein date, place and time of making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and date of issuing notice of Talbe-Ishhad in terms of section 13 of the Act, is not provided, it would be fatal for the pre-emption suit."
Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in Pir Mohammad's case that omission to mention the time, date and place of making Talb-e-Muwathibat in plaint would be fatal to a suit of preemption, this court need not resolve the dispute between the parties as to whether or not the plaintiff possessed superior right of pre-emption.
5. The respondent/plaintiff failed to meet the requirements set in Mian Pir Muhammad's case, this Court has no option but to allow this revision petition and thus the impugned judgment and decree dated 3-3-2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs..