' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision, the petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 11-2-2009 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant was accepted and judgment and decree dated 9-2-2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, Malikwal District Mandi Bahaud-Din decreeing the suit of plaintiffs-petitioners, were set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that on 26-11-1998 the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit to pre- empt the sale of land in favour of defendant transferred through Mutation No,855 attested on 19-11- 1998. In the plaint the plaintiffs pleaded that they came to know about the sale of land on 3-11-1998 and forthwith announced their right of pre-emption. The written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant. He denied the claim of plaintiffs and pleaded that the Talbs have not been fulfilled in accorilance with law, as notice has not been sent to him. 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 closing of trial, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9-2-2007 decreed the suit. An appeal was filed before the first appellate court by the defendant, which was .Accepted vide judgment and decree dated 11-2- 2069. Hence, this civil revision by the petitioners-plaintiffs.
3. I have noticed that in the plaint place of knowledge of impugned sale is - mentioned as the house of Rabia Bibi without specifying any place in that house, whereas in the statement it has been stated that the plaintiffs were sitting in the courtyard of house of Rabia Bibi. Further the plaintiffs-petitioners produced receipt of sending the notice as Exh.P-3, Acknowledgement Due as Exh.P-4 and registered envelope as Exh.P-5. All these documents were produced in the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Astonishingly on the receipt there is thumb impression of recipient of the registered letter and the names of recipient are Fatima Bibi and Rabia Bibi, whereas on the other side the address of sender is Civil Judge, Malikwal. The original envelope has also been produced as Exh.P-5, whereupon it is reported that the addressee is not available and his `Lawahiqeen' have refused to receive the same, therefore be returned. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that learned first appellate court has non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that the Talabs were made even prior to the attestation of mutation. While relying upon "PLD 2011 Supreme Court 151 (Muhammad Tariq and others v. Mst. Shamsa Tanveer and others)" argues that as the statements of parties were recorded by the Revenue Officer on 19-8-1998, the transaction was completed and attestation of which was just a formality, which was actually attested on 23-11- 1998. As the plaintiffs came to know about the sale on 3-11-1998 and pronounced their intention to pre-empt the sale on the same day and on next day i,e, 4-11-1998 sent the notice, therefore in accordance with section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and in the light of case law referred supra, I agree with learned counsel for the petitioners to this extent that as the statements of parties to the transaction were recorded on 19-8-1998, the receipt of sale price was admitted by the seller, the possession was transferred and further attestation of mutation was a formality, therefore the sale for the purpose of pre-emption was complete in all respects on 19-8-1998 and the pronouncement of right of. Pre-emption before the attestation of mutation and sending notice thereof was not defective one.
4. Now the question of performance of Talbs in accordance with law is concerned, the plaintiffs have pleaded the place of knowledge and pronouncement of right of pre-emption as house of one of the plaintiffs without any specification of place in the house, whereas when they appeared as their own witnesses and stated the place of knowledge and intention of right of preemption as courtyard of house of Rabia Bibi. I believe that it is not a specific place required under the law to be pleaded and proved for the performance of Talb-eMuwathibat because all the three ingredients i,e, date, place and time of gaining the knowledge of sale is necessary in order to prove the jumping demand, as it is a fact which is to be proved through oral evidence. It must be pleaded specifically and without pleading the place of knowledge the jumping demand cannot be proved.
In this context, I am fortified by the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302 (Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others)".
5. I have observed that the alleged notice of Talb-e-Ishhad sent to the vendee has not been proved, served or refusal on his part, as the Postman has not been produced to justify the same.
The Postman as well as Postal Clerk has not been produced. The receipt as well as original notice which contains/report that the addressee was not available and his `Lawahiqeen' have refused to accept the, same, is not proved on the record, as the same has been produced in the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiffs. In this context, reliance is placed upon "2007 SCM R 1105 (Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah) and 2011 SCM R 762 (Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Rasool)".
6. In this view of the matter, the petitioners-plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the performance of Talb-eMuwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with law, which are prerequisite for filing a suit for pre-emption. When both these, Talbs have not been pleaded and proved in accordance with law, therefore I am unable to disagree with the findings recorded by learned first appellate court. Consequently, no case for interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. As such, the instant; civil revision being devoid of any substance is dismissed.