MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- The suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by the present respondent/plaintiff against the sale of land measuring 22-K, 06-M, Sq. No. 55, Killa No. 4/2, 5, 14/2, 17, 24/1, situated within the revenue limits of Chak No. 54/4, Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura in the Court of Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib.
2. This suit was resisted by the respondent through preliminary objections besides factual position.
It was specifically denied that the Talb- - Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad have been made in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit however, the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2004 record the suit. This civil revision was admitted for regular hearing 07.04.2004 and it is pending before this Court since then.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after revisiting all, the available judgments on the point that the time, place and date are necessary to be mentioned in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit, answered in affirmative and declared that in a plaint the particulars of date, time and place of Talb-iMuwathibat is a mandatory requirement of law under Section 13 of the Punj b Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991). Reliance can be placed on 2007 SCM R 10 (Khyber Khan and others v. Haji Malik Amanullah Khan): "S. 13---Right of pre-emption, exercise of---Talb-i-Muwathibat---Non mentioning of time and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat in plaint---Effect--- Pre-emptor though had mentioned in plaint the date of making Talb-iMuwathibat but he failed to specify in the plaint the time and place. Where Talb-i-Muwathibat was made---Omission to mention anyone the three particulars in the plaint would result in dismissal of a emption suit---Resolution of such question did not require any factual determination as the same was determinable from the bare reading of ; plaint."
It has been held that omission to mention any of the three particulars in the plaint would result in dismissal of pre-emption suit.
4. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the plaint has been read with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, where in the time and place have been found missing. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent tried to wriggle out of it by referring to the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent which is not acceptable in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Which is binding in nature in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. As such, the pre-emptor failed to fulfill the requisite conditions of making Talb-i-Muwathibat and his mere assertion as to performance of Taft and making of some improvements in evidence was not enough. Hence the pre-emptor failed to lay proper foundation in pleadings about performance of Talbs therefore alleged superior right of pre-emption stood extinguished due to non-performance of Talbs in accordance with law.
5. As a result of the foregoing position, omission to specify details of time and place of Talb-i- Muwathibat in the plaint constitute an infraction of mandatory terms of statute rendering the suit non-maintainable. Therefore, this petition is allowed and judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Civil revision .