' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality of judgment and decree dated 24-6-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Bahawalpur dismissing the suit for possession through pre-emption instituted by the petitioner regarding the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint and also the judgment and decree dated 1-4-1998 passed by the learned. Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24-6-1996, was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for seeking decree for possession through pre-emption regarding land comprising 12-Kanals 10-Marlas situated in Mouza Kerpal Tehsil Bahawalpur which was sold by Karim Bakhsh to the defendants/ respondents Noor Muhammad, Subay Khan and Nazir Ahmad vide Mutation No.519 dated 20-6- 1992 for a consideration of Rs.1,23,500 and in order to defeat the superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiff, the sale price has been mentioned as Rs.1,64,000. The plaintiff claimed her superior right of pre-emption being co-sharer in the dispute property. She after coming. To know about' the factum of sale, immediately announced that she would preempt the same and as such fulfilled the requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat and also sent a written notice to the vendee about her intention to enforce her superior right of pre-emption and requested them to transfer the land in question in her favour but they refused.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 contested the suit and the learned trial Court out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- "ISSUES ' No.1 Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption as against the defendant?-OPP ' No.2' Whether the ostensible sale price was fixed as Rs.1,64,000 ? OPD ' No.3 If not so, what was the market values of the suit-land at the time of sale? OP Parties "No.4 Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of T'alabs.? If not so, its effect? OPP ' No.5 Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring this suit on account of his words and conduct OPD ' No.6 Whether the plaintiff has waived his right, of pre-emption, if any? .OPD ' No.7 Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD ' No.8 Whether this suit has been filed for the benefit of the vendor? OPD ' No.9 Whether the plaintiff is in need of the suit-land and he may suffer any loss if failed to get the same? OPP ' No.10 Whether the defendants are entitled to incidental charges of sale? If so to what extent and to what effect? OPD ' No.11 Relief."
4. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24-6-1996. The plaintiff/petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1-4-1998. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat and she also send a written notice within the stipulated period of 15-days but both the learned Courts below did not look into this aspect of the case and dismissed the suit as well as appeal arbitrarily.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirements of the Talbs in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab PreEmption Act, 1991, therefore, the suit as well as the appeal has rightly been dismissed.' Relies on case titled "Haq. Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabir (2009 SCM R 630 (Supreme Court of Pakistan))".
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
8. Under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 right of pre-emption of a person shall be extinguished unless, such. Person makes demands of pre-emption, in the following order:-- "(i) Talb-e-Muwathibat
(ii) Talb-e-Ishhad and
(iii) Talb-e-Khusumat"
' Explanation I. "Talb-e-Muwathibat means immediate demand by a preemptor in the sitting or meeting (Majlis) in which he has come to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
' Note. Any word indicative of intention to exercise the right of pre-emption are sufficient.
(H) Talb-e-Ishhad means demand by establishing evidence.
(HI Talb-e-Khusumat means demand by filing suit.
(2) When the fact of sales comes within the knowledge of a pre-emptor through any source, he shall make Talb-e-Muwathibat.
(3) Where a pre-emptor has made Talb-e-Muwathibat under subsection (2), he shall soon thereafter as possible but not later than. Two weeks from the date of knowledge make Talb-e- Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful. Witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgement due, to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre- emption: ' Provided that in areas where owing to lack of post office facilities it is not possible for the pre- emptor to give registered notice, he may make Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses.
(4) -Where a pre-emptor has satisfied the requirements of Talb-eMuwathibat under sub-section (2), and Talb-e-Ishhad under subsection (3) he shall make Talb-e-Khusumat in the Court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the right of pre-emption."
9. Talb-e-Muwathibat means the jumping demand which a pre-emptor is supposed to make immediately after getting the knowledge of sale that he/she will preempt the same. It is mandatory for a pre-emptor to mention in the plaint, the place and time of the performance of Talb- eMuwathibat because from such date, the time provided by the statute i.e. 14-days under subsection (3) 'of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 shall be calculated. In the instant case the plaintiff/ petitioner in Paragraph No.5 of the plaint mentioned that on 9-7-1992 she along with her husband Haji Peeran Ditta and Haji Allah Rakha and Gulzar Ahmad were present when Muhammad Javed son of Ghulam Muhammad informed that her brother Karim Bakhsh defendant No.4 had sold his land to defendants Nos.1 to 3 vide Mutation No.519 dated 20-6-1992 and the petitioner without loss of a moment immediately announced that she being co-sharer in the Khata had got preferential right of pre-emption and she would institute suit for possession through pre- emption. She fulfilled the requirements of Talb-eMuwathibat and on the following day, she went to defendants Nos.1 to 3 and told them about the sale in question through Javed and that she has fulfilled the requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat and they should accept her right of pre-emption and transfer the land in her favour after the receipt of consideration paid to the vendor but they refused. She thereafter sent a notice on 15-7-1992. The petitioner herself appeared as P.W. And stated that nine months. Back, Javed came when Allah Rakha, Gulzar Ahmad and her husband Peeran Ditta were present and informed about the sale of land in question by Rahim Bakhsh and Karim Bakhsh and she immediately announced that she would institute suit for pre-emption.
Similarly, Gulzar Ahmad P.W.4 stated that 2-3/4 years back he along with Haji Allah Rakha and Peeran Ditta was present in the house of Aemina the petitioner where Javed came and told about the sale in question when she announced her intention to pre-empt the same. Javed and Peeran Ditta P.Ws. Made similar statements.
10. In the plaint, the plaintiff categorically mentioned that she gained the knowledge of sale in question on 9-7-1992 wherein neither she nor the witnesses examined by her have deposed that.
She came to know about the sale in question on 9-7-1992 and deposed that nine months back they came to know about the sale in question. No specific date or time regarding the announcement of the petitioner that she would pre-empt the sale in question, has been mentioned, in her statement. Similarly, no time and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat has been mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the plaint.
11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Hag Nawaz v.
Muhammad Kabir (2009 SCM R 630 (Supreme Court of Pakistani)", that mentioning of date, place and time in the plaint regarding of Talb-e-Muwathibat in a suit for pre-emption is sine qua non because in the absence of proper date, place and time, the time provided in section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 for making Talb-e-Ishhad cannot be calculated correctly. The petitioner has categorically failed to mentioned the same in her plaint and in her statement before the Court, therefore, the findings of both the learned Courts below are in accordance with law and are hereby maintained.
' Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is without any merits, the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.