TARIQ JAVAID, J. ---It is contended that the petitioners pre-empted sale of the suit land measuring 12 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in village Kharian purchased by the vendee in the sum of Rs,1,00,000. It is maintained that the petitioners had a superior right of pre-emption; that Talb-e- Muwathibat was fulfilled as soon as the petitioners gained the knowledge of sale which was registered sale-deed dated 8-4-1992 and at the same time he performed Talb-e-Muwathibat and then sent a notice for Talb-e-Ishhad in presence of the witnesses through registered A.D. He claimed his superior right on the basis of Shafi-khaleet, Shafi Shareek and Shafi jar.
2. Suit of pre-emption was resisted by the respondent. Issues were framed. Both the parties produced evidence oral as well as documentary. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide judgment dated 9-3-2004. Appeal against the said judgment was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14-6-2005.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the courts below have erred in law while deciding issue regarding maintainability of the suit on the basis of section 2-A of Pre-emption Act, 1991. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner both the courts below had not appreciated condition laid down in section 3 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XXXIV) of 1975. Jamanbandi produced as well as statement of Patwari clearly shows that the suit land was assessed for land revenue therefore, it had not attained urban character.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners mere inclusion of certain area within the local limits of a Municipal Committee does not make it a town within the meanings of S-3 Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the purpose of jurisdiction. It was argued that the suit land was agriculture property and under law the petitioner had a right to pre-empt the suit land.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that necessary ingredients to establish right of pre-emption was to mention time, date and place in the plaint Whereas none of these ingredients are mentioned in plaint nor any evidence in this respect was produced therefore, even if it is held that the suit land was not urban property and it retained its agriculture character, even then the failure to mention time, date and place, in the plaint was fatal to the case of the petitioner. Relies on Saad Muhammad and others v. Faqir Muhammad PLD 2007 SC 302; Fazal-e- Subhani v. Muhammad Sabir and others PLD 2005 SC 977 and Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Fida Muhammad (PLD 2003 SC 315).
5. Perusal of the record reveals that averments with regard to time, date and place were not mentioned in the plaint; therefore, the impugned judgment does not merit to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition is dismissed.