' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 16-3-2004 passed by learned Addl. District, Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 11-10-2001 passed by learned Civil Judge, Alipur, whereby, the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the respondent-plaintiff pre-empted the sale of land in favour of Abdul Razzaq (appellant No,1) fully described in the head note of plaint through Mutation No,298 attested on 31-12-1994.
' The written statement was filed and suit was contested. Out of the divergent pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 11-10-2001 the suit was decreed by the trial Court. An appeal was filed by the defendants-appellants before the first appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16-3-2004. Hence, this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants at the very outset states that there is no mention of date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale in the plaint and also there is no mention of witnesses of Talb-e-Muwathibat; that there is no mention of date, time and place of knowledge of sale in the alleged notice of Talb-e-Ishhad (Exh.P-1). Learned counsel while relying upon "PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302 (Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad, and others) and 2009 SCM R 630 (Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabir)" argues that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below being contrary to law be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff while relying upon "PLD 1970 Supreme Court 415 (Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R. Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Iesacs)" states that rights of the parties to the suit must be adjudicated on the basis of law prevailing at date of suit and he has further relied upon 2001 SCM R 671 (Vokkart Pakistan Ltd. Karachi v. Interavia Pakistan Limited, Karachi)".
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance as well as case-law cited by them.
6.It is not denied by either of the party that the jumping demand is a prerequisite for filing a suit for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. For determination of jumping demand, it is prerequisite that plaintiff must plead the jumping demand in the plaint, mention in the notice and prove the same through the evidence. For proving the jumping demand the point of time of knowledge is necessary. If it is not on the surface that when and where the plaintiff came to know about the sale, the plaintiff cannot prove the jumping demand. First of all, he is to prove the place where he was present, the time and date of knowledge of sale and then he can prove the jumping demand. The case- IA law referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that a lis is to be decided on the basis of law at the time of decision of lis, is concerned. I fully agree with the learned counsel but the interpretation advanced by him that at the time of filing of suit the case- law cited by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants vas not in the field, I am afraid was that this interpretation of law is not correct. As this Court and the august Supreme Court have interpreted the preemption law and not created any new law. .The interpretation of law is ever applicable from the time of legislation of law. As I have discussed above, for proving a jumping demand the point of time of knowledge of sale is necessary and for, issuance of a notice of Talb-e- Ishhad within two weeks can be proved if there is date of knowledge. If there is no date of knowledge in the notice or in the plaint, how the plaintiff can state that his right has not been extinguished in accordance with section 13 B of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 when he haS not mentioned the date of knowledge. In this view of the matter, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are in clear violation of basic law of pre-emption. The case-law referred to by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is fully applicable to the facts of this case.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff shall stand dismissed.