AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision the petitioners-defendants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Minchinabad whereby suit for preemption filed by the respondents-plaintiff was decreed.
2. The respondents were served but no one is present on their behalf. Therefore, they are proceeded against ex-parte.
3. The petitioners-defendants purchased suit land through mutation No. 74 attested on 20.1.1992.
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit to pre-empt the sale on 2.3.1992. The written statement was filed. The suit was contested. The learned Trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1995 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2000, hence this civil revision.
4. Learned .Counsel for the petitioners-defendants contends that Talabs have not been mentioned nor evidence has been led in accordance with requirement of Section 13 of the Pre-eruption Act, 1991. I have noticed-that in plaint the time and place of knowledge of sale as well as Talb-i- Muwathibar have not been mentioned. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are in clear violation of law declared by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan on this subject. Reliance is placed on Mian Pir Muhammad and others Vs. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs.
And there (PLD 2007 SC 302).
5. In this view of the matter, I am clear in my mind that when the plaintiffs-respondents are not able to prove the exact time and place of knowledge, they cannot assert or prove the jumping demand. In this case when it has not been mentioned specific time and place of knowledge and Talb-iMuwathibat, therefore, there is no question of proving the jumping demand. Even I have noticed that one of the plaintiffs Niaz Ahmad appeared as PW.5 10.2.1994. He deposed that two years ago he came to know about the impugned sale wherein in plaint the date of knowledge has been mentioned as 28.2.1992. Therefore, at least there is a difference of 18 days of date of knowledge ,mentioned- in the pleading and while asserting the same at the time of making statement before the Court. As Niaz Ahmad one of the plaintiffs, therefore, his statement with regard to talbs will be presumed only on his behalf and, not on behalf of other plaintiffs. Under the law each and every-plaintiff to prove talbs on his behalf, this can be proved only if each plaintiff appears before the Court or appoints some attorney to make statement before the Court. In case in hand only one of the plaintiffs appeared and he was not having power-of-attorney on behalf of other plaintiffs. Therefore, it is also a fatal defect in the evidence of the plaintiffs.
Civil revision .