' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioners have assailed the vires of judgment and decree dated 5-10-1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Multan, whereby an appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1994 of the learned Civil Judge, Multan, was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, as emerge on perusal of the record are that the respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals and 8 Marlas fully described in the head note of the plaint. It was stated that the land was owned by one Muhammad Rafiq son of Alam Ali, who alienated the same in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs,50,000/- through Mutation No,2218 dated 21-3-1993 but a fictitious sale price of Rs,80,000/- was entered in the mutation. It was urged that the plaintiff/respondent is a co-sharer in the Khata so has a superior right of pre-emption qua the petitioners/ defendants, who don't possess any such right. It was urged that he attained knowledge about the sale on 27-3-1993 and made the Talb-i- Muwathibat on the same day and thereafter made Talb-i-Ishhad by sending a notice through registered cover envelope.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants. It was urged that the Talbs were not made in accordance with law and that the plaintiff/respondent had waived of his right, if any. The learned trial court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff waived his right of pre-emption, if so, what is its effect? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit through his words and conduct? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendants are entitled to get special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C., if so, to what extent? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has preferential right of pre-emption? OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled all the conditions precedent of Talbs? OPP.
(6) Whether the sale price of the property in dispute was bonafidely fixed and paid Rs,80,000/-?
OPD.
(7) If the above issue is not proved, then what is the market value of the property in dispute? OP- parties.
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for possession through pre-emption? OPP
(9) Relief.
' After recoding the evidence and hearing the arguments, the learned trial court decreed the suit to the extent of half of the disputed property subject to payment of Rs,40,000/- as price of the same along with the compensation of Rs,15,000/- for the expenses incurred on improvements. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed.
4. Today, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the civil revision is liable of dismissal under Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C.
5. It is art established law that civil revision once admitted to hearing cannot be dismissed in default because it is the duty of the revisional Court to see if the judgment and decree of the subordinate court is based on proper exercise of jurisdiction lawfully vested in it and whether jurisdiction has been exercised legally and without any material irregularity. Even if the parties to the civil revision do not render necessary assistance, the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Makes it imperative' for Revisional Court to make an appropriate order if the judgment or order is found to be in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law in it or the Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In this respect, reliance is placed on Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others (PLD 2000 SC 820).
5. In the plaint it was contended that the respondent/plaintiff acquired the knowledge about the sale on 27-3-1993 and made Talb-i-Muwathibat at the same time. The exact time and specific place of making the Talb-i-Muwathibat are not mentioned. The pre-emptor is required to give the date, time and place of attaining the knowledge and making the Talb-i-Muwathibat under section 13(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. If anyone of the above details is missing, then it would be presumed that the same was not made in accordance with law. Even in the witness-box, the plaintiff/respondent did not give full details of the date, place and time of making of Talb- iMuwathibat. In these circumstances, both the courts below committed material irregularity in holding that the Talbs were made in accordance with law. In this respect, reliance is placed on Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad Through L.Rs, and others (PLD 2007 SC 302).
6. For the reasons supra, both the judgments and decrees of the learned trial court dated 11-7-1994 and of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6-10-1996 are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The revision petition is accordingly accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed. As the petitioners have not appeared in the Court so the parties to left their own costs.