' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.---This judgment shall dispose of the instant revision petition filed by Noor Muhammad Khan etc. Against the judgment and decree dated 7-6-2012 passed by learned ADM, Peshawar vide which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Civil judge-V, Peshawar dated 30-9-2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff brought a suit for possession by exercising the rights of pre-emption in respect of disputed land purchased by defendant/respondent vide Mutation No,6445 dated 13-6-1996 in consideration of Rs,55000 through a clandestine transaction with the intention to defeat their right of pre-emption. That as soon as they got the knowledge of sale they, there and then announced their right of pre-emption and fulfil the requirement of Talb- eMuwathibat. They then dispatched notice of Talb-e-Ishhad to each of the defendant/respondent under registered covered A.D. That they being co-owner in the suit land had superior rights of pre- emption. That the defendants were asked time and again to deliver the possession of the suit land after the receipt of sale consideration but they refused hence they filed the suit.
Respondents/defendants were summoned. They attended the Court and contested the suit. After the trial the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-9-2010. Against that judgment and decree they filed appeal which also met the same fate.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree petitioner filed the present revision petition and challenged the impugned judgment on number of grounds inter alia that the petitioners were declared non-suited on mere technical grounds of non-mentioning time, date and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat and non-mentioning date of Talb-eIshhad in plaint. That the material facts have been mentioned in the plaint which is the requirement of law and envisaged in Order VI Rule 2, C . P . C .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioners moved an application for the amendment of plaint before the appellant Court in order to mention in the plaint the time, date and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat as well as date of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad but the appellate Court did not consider the plea of petitioner and dismissed it on 7-6-2012. It is further contended that it is not necessary to mention the specific date, time and place in the plaint in order to prove Talbs. In support of his arguments he relied on 2001 SCMR 539, 1999 SCMR 2167, 2000 CLC Pesh. 336, PLD 2002 Pesh.
21.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner got no force because it is settled principle of law that to fulfil the requirement of Talbs, the date, time and place and name of informer has to be mentioned in the plaint. Reference in this respect is made to 2007 SCMR 1832, PLD 2007 SC 302, PLD 2001 SC 13, 2007 SCMR 515, PLD 2003 SC 315, PLD 2005 SC 977, 2008 SCMR 934, 2009 YLR Lahore 90, 2009 YLR Karachi 1965. The stance as reflected from the plaint is that respondent No, 8 had sold out suit land to vendees/ respondents vide sale Mutation No, 6445 dated 13-6-1996 at their back. In para No, 3 of the plaint it is mentioned that on coming to know about the said transaction, they in the presence of the witnesses namely Sajjad Ahmad and Safeerullah announced their intention to pre-empt the suit land being superior rights of pre- emption. The date, time, place and the name of informer is not mentioned in the plaint. However, during evidence, petitioners are found to have further explained the event involving performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat as on 23-9-2011 P.W.3 petitioner Noor Muhammad who is also attorney of petitioner No, 2 stated that on 8-8-1996 at 5-00 p.m. They along with Sajjad Ahmad and Safeerullah were present in their Hujra when in the meanwhile one Shehzada son of Noor Ahmad informed them about the sale of property and where upon they immediately announced their intention to pre-empt it. The statements of two witnesses of Talbs namely Safeerullah and Sajjad Ahmad were recorded as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 while the statement of alleged informer Shehzada has not been recorded to prove that he informed the pre-emptors on specific date, time and place.
6. Both the Courts below have rightly pointed out that appellants felt the need of spelling out details of Talb-e-Muwathibat after 14 years during recording evidence. The appellant case is found deficient in another very significant aspect which is pertaining to the date of performance of Talb- e-Ishhad in their plaint. Under the law this Talb-e- D Ishhad is required to be made as soon as possible after Talb-eMuwathibat but not later than 14 days span. Having not.Mentioned the date of performing the said Talb in the plaint how could one reckon this stipulated period for fulfillment of the legal provision. Though at appellate stage, petitioners have submitted an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. For mentioning date time and place in plaint but it is not entertainable because the instant suit is pre-emption suit and performance of Talb according to law is mandatory requirement and failure to these are deemed to be failure of the suit and the lacuna in this regard should not be filled through the amended plaint. It has rightly been not considered by appellate Court.
7. In the circumstances, learned appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioners assigning sound and cogent reasons and upheld the finding of facts recorded by learned trial Court. No infirmity legal or factual has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree calling interference by this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction of this court.
8. Thus his revision petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.