' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment and decree dated 22-5-2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan vide which appeal of the petitioner/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-2011 of learned Civil Judge-V, D.I.Khan was dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the property fully detailed in the plaint by alleging that the suit property was purchased by the respondents/defendants on 13-5-2009 through registered deed No,1098 in lieu of Rs,2,52,910 but an inflated amount of Rs,3,16,250 was entered in the registered deed to defeat the right of pre-emption of the petitioner/plaintiff. It was alleged that he got knowledge of the suit transaction on 7-9-2009 at 2-30 p.m. At his Baithak through Farmanullah and there and then declared his intention to preempt the suit transaction and on 8- 9-2009 sent notices talb-e-ishhad to the respondents/defendants through registered A/Ds.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge-V, D.LKhan dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-2011.
4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 26-11-2011, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, D.1.Khan vide judgment and decree dated 22-5-2012, hence the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the courts below have non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that his informer has not given the time in his statement, which is not proper appreciation of law. He added that the courts below have also wrongly concluded about the non-service of notices Talb-e-Ishhad on the ground that postman has not been produced. He argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has successfully proved the case but the Courts below have wrongly non-suited him on these petty grounds. He argued that the witnesses were not supposed to mention the date, time and place in their statements, rather the petitioner/plaintiff was bound to do so, who has proved the same and there is no lacuna in the statement of petitioner/plaintiff and he cannot be burdened and non-suited on the basis of statement made by the informer.
6. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the statement of P.W.7, who has allegedly informed the plaintiff, is deficient of narration regarding time and exact place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat. He argued that the notices served upon the respondents/defendants were lacking the detailed description of property and the same were typed and cyclostyled notices, already prepared, duly filled by the petition writer with particulars which is not the requirement of law. He argued that the Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff, as his own statement and the statement of his witness are contradictory to each other and the notices were not mailed properly because A/D cards are not available on file and the postman was not produced in order to prove the proper delivery of notices Talb-e-Ishhad.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
8. Perusal of statement of informer (P.W.7) reveals that he has failed to mention the time of disclosing information to the plaintiff, who happens to be his father. No doubt place instead of baithak, `ghar' has been mentioned in the statement but the same cannot be taken into consideration as would amount to too technical approach, as the baithak is used to be the part and parcel of the house, however, the deposition regarding the time is missing which is contrary to the statement of preemptor, as the necessary details of talbs, with special reference to the date, time and place of Talb-e-Muwathibat, are fatal for maintainability of pre-emption suit. Though the petitioner/plaintiff has given these details in the plaint and has deposed in support of his plaint, but the informer has not supported his version which goes against the petitioner/plaintiff, for the reason that the assertion made by the petitioner/plaintiff with regard to performance of Talb-e- Muwathibat, duly informed by his informer (P.W.7) stands not proved. Needless to mention that the petitioner/plaintiff is bound by the statement given by his witness, therefore, he cannot be allowed to resile from the statement of his son (P.W.7), who has failed to reiterate and fortify the incident of Talb-e-Muwathibat, with special reference to the time of making Talb-eMuwathibat. It is by now established law that a party producing a witness is legally bound by the statement given by his witness in the Court. The informer, having a vital role in pre-emption cases, with special reference to the disclosure of information to the plaintiff activating him for performance of Talb-e- Muwathibat has the bounden duty to depose about date, time and place positively for the prca;f of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, which cannot be termed as mere technicality and as such omission to mention time by the informer would be fatal to the case. The Courts below are right in holding non-proof of Talb-e-Muwathibat on behalf of plaintiff due to deficiency in the evidence produced by the plaintiff with regard to the time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat.
9. So far as notices Talb-e-Ishhad are concerned, perusal of the same reveals that it were in typed form, already prepared and kept by the petition writer for the purpose, duly drafted in omnibus manner, which is violently against the provisions of section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Preemption Act, 1987. A general statement has been typed, leaving space for the names of parties, description of property and the names of witnesses, which is against the mandate of law, for the simple reason that the wordings mentioned in it are already typed/cyclostyled and the blank spaces are filled by the petition writer in accordance with the facts of each case. Section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre- emption Act, 1987 is reproduced below for ready reference:-- "Subject to his ability to do so, where a pre-emptor has made Talb-e-Muwathibat under subsection (2), he shall as soon thereafter as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of notice under section 32, or knowledge, whichever may be earlier, make Talb-e-Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses, under registered cover acknowledgment due to the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption.
' Provided that in areas where due to lack of post office facilities it is not possible for the pre- emptor to give registered notice, he may make Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses."
10. The above referred provision clearly indicates that after making Talb-e-Muwathibat, the plaintiff shall make Talb-e-Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses within two weeks under registered cover to the vendee for conformation of his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. The already typed notice does not fall within the ambit of notice in writing nor does it fulfil the requirement of section 13(3) of the Act ibid. The perusal of the typed notices reveals that the wordings mentioned in it also amount to departure from the above referred provision and as such the notices issued in the instant case do not come within the ambit of notice Talb-e- Ishhad in writing, attested by two truthful witnesses.
11. The record does not-speak about the mailing of notices Talb-eIshhad through registered envelopes as A/D receipts are not available on file and the postman, who has allegedly delivered the registered envelopes Nos.603 and 604, has not been produced in support of delivery of notices mailed through registered A/Ds. Though branch postmaster (P.W.4) has deposed on 15-6-2011 that the person entrusted with the delivery of notice has since expired but no serious effort has been made by the petitioner/plaintiff to prove that in fact delivery of notices was made in accordance with law and as such the Courts below have rightly relied upon the judgment of this. Court reported in PLD 2011 Peshawar 116 wherein examination of postmaster in support of service of notice was held to be necessary for proper delivery of registered envelope apart from the production of A/D cards and it was held a lacuna fatal to non-suit the plaintiff.
12. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2011 SCM R 762 has also observed that the plaintiff/pre-emptor has to produce evidence including the postman to prove the fact of delivery of notice upon the defendant in case of refusal by the defendant in order to succeed in a case of pre-emption. In such scenario, the Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff and the impugned judgments need no interference.
13. In case of Munawar Hussain and others v. Afaq Ahmad (2013 SCM R 721), the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that:- "So far as Talb-e-Ishhad is concerned, admittedly the service on one of the two petitioners- defendants/vendees namely Muhammad Akram was not personally effected and according to learned counsel for the respondent, it was effected on his brother and co-sharer Munawar Hussain appellant. The above-referred service is not a service in the eyes of law. It is not the case of respondent/plaintiff either that service of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on the said vendee was made through registered post acknowledge due. The contention that service of the co-vendee should be presumed as service in law is not backed by any provision of law and therefore, is not tenable."
14. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant revision petition being bereft of any substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.