ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.---- The respondents are represented by Malik Muhammad Amjad Advocate who was not present on the last date of hearing i.e. 16.6.2011. Even today, despite issuance of follow up notice and the fact that service has been effected, neither the counsel for the respondents nor any of the respondents is in attendance. Hence they are proceeded against ex parte.
2. Against the sale of land (fully described in para-1 of the plaint) situated within the municipal limits of Daska for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- through registered sale-deed dated 28.5.1995, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a, suit for possession through pre-emption on 27.9.1995. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants and the Civil Court settled as many as seven issues on 20.01.1997. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were not pressed before the Civil Court and while deciding issues Nos.4, 5 & 6 the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff through judgment and decree dated 22.09.1999. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal and the Addj. District Judge through the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2003 accepted the same as a result thereof, the petitioner's suit was dismissed, hence this revision petition.
3. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are that registration of sale did .Not come in public notice as required under section 31(1) of the Punjab preemption Act, 1991, that as soon as the petitioner/plaintiff came to know about the sale transaction he made Talb-eMuwathibat in presence of truthful witnesses and also fulfilled the requirement of Talb-e-Ishhad, thus, the appellate Court should not have accepted the appeal and that dismissal of the suit by the appellate Court was not justified in any manner whatsoever.
4. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard and record perused. The averments of the petitioner/plaintiff made in para-3 of the plaint regarding gaining his knowledge about sale transaction and performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat are of much importance. The same is reproduced as under:- 24.09.1995 .{{URDU TEXT}}..5.,"/J`KV 1,Pyrj.,;), .Rtz.Trj..4A66'LP.o ,,i,L5,9v 155J z:,/ -ibCfc, -11%.k= 2_ L.c.4,11.*c.-Z,Ail...Wa,1K2._rioeV(YAA12....yrCitiLeA_IL deiZik LA!
5. It is noteworthy here that the plaintiff having come to know about sale of the disputed property immediately claimed his superior right of pre-emption at the spot on 24.09.1995 without mentioning any specific time which factor is fatal as observed in reported as Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through legal heirs and others (PLD 2007 SC 302) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "that a plaint wherein the date, place and time of talbe-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 preemption suit."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in case of 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 pre-emption suit. Resolution of this question does not require any factual determination, as the same is determinable from the bare reading of the pliant"
7. It has been held in Mst. Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (PLD 2008 SC 559) as under:- "The mentioning of date, place and time in the plaint in a suit for pre-emption is mandatory regarding Talbe-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 pre-emptor 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. Tnis Court has approved the view that a plaint wherein date, place and time of making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and date of issuing of the Act, is not provided, it would be fatal for the pre-emption suit.
8. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pir Muhammad's Case (Supra) that omission to mention the time, daie and place of making talb-e-Muwathibat in plaint would be fatal to a suit of pre-emption as observed earlier. This Court need not to resolve the dispute between the parties as to whether or not the plaintiff possessed superior right of pre-emption.
9. The appellant/plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements as set in Mian Pir Muhammad's (Supra), therefore, this Court has no option but to dismiss this petition and thus the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Daska District Sialkot is upheld as there is no illegality or material irregularity therein.
10 For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Civil Revision .