' SHAHID WAHEED, J.---The petitioner, Sardar Khan through this Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C.
Has called in question the judgment and decree dated 8-5-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian whereby his suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent purchased land measuring 13 Marla from its original owners namely Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam etc. For a consideration of Rs.91,000 vide Mutation No. 1651 dated 7-3-1991. It is stated in the plaint that after getting knowledge of sale, the petitioner immediately declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption; and, that on 6-5-1991 notice of Talb-e-Ishhad' attested by two truthful witnesses was sent to the respondent. Thereafter on 11-5-1991, the petitioner filed a suit for possession of suit-land through pre-emption. In response to summons, the respondent entered appearance before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing a written statement on 30-10-1991. The learned trial Court reduced the controversy into issues and called upon the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. After recording evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1-3-2-1995 decreed the suit. The respondent filed an appeal before the first appellate court.
The first appellate court remanded the case to the learned trial Court for a decision afresh on all issues. Consequent upon remand, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3-11-1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997. The petitioner assailed the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge before this court through Civil Revision No. 2135-D of 1997. The above said Civil Revision was accepted vide judgment dated 2-7-2002 and the case was remitted to the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian for re-decision of appeal strictly in accordance with law. Pursuant to judgment dated 2-7-2002, the learned Additional District Judge again dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 8-5-2004. Hence, this petition.
3. At the outset of hearing, I confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with 'Paragraph 3 of the plaint which is silent about the date, time, place and name of witnesses before whom the petitioner/plaintiff declared his intention to A Civil Appeal No. 1951 of 2000 decided on 12-12-2006 in case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another V. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. And others (PLD 2007 SC 302), wherein all these authorities and references have been plausibly discussed and it was held that in a suit for pre-emption mentioning of date, place and time of making Talb-e- Muwathibat, in the plaint, is mandatory because in the absence of proper date, place and time, the time given in section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for making Talb-e-Ishhad which is 14 days, cannot be correctly calculated. It is necessary that as soon as the pre-emptor acquires knowledge of sale of pre-empted property, he would make immediate demand about his desire and intention to assert his right of preemption without slightest loss, of time and after making 'Talb-eMuwathibat' in terms of section 13(2) of the Act, the preemptor has another legal obligation to perform i.e. Talb-e-Ishhad as soon as possible after making of Talb-e- Muwathibat, but none not later than two weeks from the date of knowledge/performance of Talb- Muwathibat. The mentioning of date, place and time in the plaint in a suit for pre-emption is mandatory regarding Talb-eMuwathibat because from such date the time provided by the statute for making of Talb-e-Ishhad i.e. 14 days, can be calculated. If there is no mention of date, place and time of knowledge about sale andexercise right of pre-emption. In response to court query, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that mentioning of date, place, time and name of the witnesses in the plaint regarding making Talb-e- Muwathibae was not the requirement of law at the time of institution of suit and stressed that the dictum laid down in the case of Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others' (2000 SCM R 329) would apply to the instant case. He placed reliance on the case of `Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another' (2000 SCM R 314). He further submitted that the principle laid down in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs any (PLD 2007 SC 302) would apply prospectively and did not attract to the instant case. The contentions raised by the leaned counsel for the petitioner have no force. The requirement of mentioning date, time, place and name of witnesses is mandatory to all the pending matters of pre-emption at any stage of the proceedings may it be trial appeal or revision and thus was essential for the petitioner's case and in this regard I find support from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme of Pakistan in the case of `Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain' (PLD 2008 SC 559), and the relevant extract thereof reads as under:-- "We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their help have also perused the available record. The High Court has met with all these references with sound and plausible reasons. It is to be noted that this controversy has been finally settled by .a Full Bench of this Court comprising five Hon'ble Judges in making of Talb-Muwathibat, then it would be very difficult to give effect to section 13(3) of the Act and there is every possibility that instead of allowing letter of law to remain in force, the pre-emptor may attempt to get a latitude by claiming any date of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in his statement in court and then on the basis of the same, try to justify the delay, if any, occurred in the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad.
Performance of both these Talbs is a sine qua non for getting a decree in a pre-emption suit. This Court has approved the view that a plaint wherein date, place and time of making of Talb-e- Muwathibat and date of issuing notice of Talb-eIshhad in terms of Section 13 of the Act, is not provided, it would be fatal for the pre-emption suit. The Hon'ble Bench of five Judges has dissented from the cases of Wall Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others' (2000 SCMR 329), Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another' (2000 SCMR 314) and has approved the view expressed in the cases of 'Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others (PLD 2005 SC 977). According to the dictum laid down by the larger Bench of this Court mentioned above, the requirement of Talbs with requisite details in the plaint is also essential even in the pending cases. "(Underlining is for emphasis).
' This question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Wazir Ahmad deceased through L.Rs. And others v. Muhammad Hussain' (C.P. No. 2307-LI 2012) which has been decided vide order dated 11-3-2013 and the same reads as under:-- "Petitioner pre-emptor has succeeded in his pre-emption cause at the trial stage, but on appeal of the respondent, he has been non-suited as he has not mentioned in the plaint the time of making Talb-eMuwathibat and also the witness in that regard. The argument that the judgment in Mian Pir Muhammad and another v Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. And others (PLD 2007 SC 302) was not in the field when the petitioner filed the suit, therefore, the law enunciated therein shall not be attracted to the present case; suffice that preponderance of this Court's view in the pre- emption matters about the application of Pir Muhammad's case is otherwise, wherein it has been held that the law enunciated in case supra shall be applicable and attracted to all the pending matters at any stage of the proceedings, may it be trial, appeal or revision or even before this Court. Resultantly, we do not find this case fit for taking any exception. Dismissed. Leave refused."
' Thus, the omission qua non-mentioning of details of Talb-e-Muwathibat i.e. Date, time, place and name of witnesses in the plaint of instant suit is fatal as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of 'Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs and others' (PLD 2007 SC 302); 'Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabeer' (2009 SCM R 630); `Ghafoor Khan through L.Rs v. Lsrar Ahmed' (2011 SCM R 1545); 'Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Yousaf (2012 SCM R 911): 'Muhammad Ali and 7 others v. Mst. Humera Fatima and 2 others' (2013 SCM R 178). In view of above, I am not inclined to exercise my revisional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as he had not made Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law. There is no need to discuss other issues.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.