No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, therefore proceeded against ex- parte.
2. This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002 and 14.10.2000, passed by the leaned courts below whereby the suit for possession through preemption filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The facts leading to this Civil revision are that, the suit land was firstly owned by one Ali Muhammad, who executed an agreement to sell with one Muhammad Aslam vendee on 27.05.1976 for consideration of Rs.9,000/- and on refusal of the vendee to perform the obligation of contract, the owner Ali Muhammad filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement which was decreed on 01.11.1986 in favour of Muhammad Aslam vendee. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 09.01.1990 and the sale deed dated 14.02.1990 was executed through the Court and on the basis of said sale deed mutation dated 19.02.1990 was entered in favour of Muhammad Aslam. At this stage both the rival pre- emptors, who are real brothers, preempted the aforesaid transaction.
Learned trial court consolidated the suit and thereafter framed consolidated issues. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2000, against which two appeals were filed which were heard together by the appellate Court and dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2002. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that when the cause of action was accrued no law relating to the preemption was in existence as the cause of action accrued on 14.02.1990, when the sale deed was executed, it came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 20.02.1990, therefore, at the relevant time except classic Islamic Law no other law was in existence and the petitioner according to the classic Islamic Law fulfilled the requirements of talabs but this aspect of the case has totally been ignored by the learned courts below while decreeing the suit against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has himself admitted that although at the time when the cause of action was accrued no pre-emption law except classic Islamic law was applicable but even under the Classic Islamic Law, the petitioner has to fulfill the requirements of talabs.
6. The record and the judgment passed by learned courts below were examined.
7. According to record the factum of the sale dated 14.02.1990, came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 20.02.1990 in the presence of the witnesses and the petitioner expressed his intention to pre-empt the sale and visited the vendee on 04.03.1990 and later on sent a notice to fulfill the requirements of Talb-e-ishand. The notices as claimed by the petitioner to fulfill the requirement of talb-e-Ishhad (Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-4/1) were sent on 16.02.1990, which were sent after three months.
8. Another aspect which is to be looked into, to show the testimony of the petitioner. The petitioner has admitted in evidence that previously he remained in litigation with Muhammad Aslam (Vendee) about the same land, therefore, he was fully aware about the transaction/sale of the land but to fulfill the requirement of Talb-e-Ishhad, the notice was served after the stipulated period, therefore, the learned courts below rightly observed that the petitioner has completely failed to fulfill the requirements of tabl-e-Ishhad, therefore, is not entitled to ask for decree for possession through pre-emption.
9. The petitioner has also failed to fulfill another important ingredient of pre-emption to agitate the right of pre-emption that in the 4s,uit; time, date and place at the time of making the jumping demand is missing. As regards the arising of cause of action and filing of suit in the intangram period, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in an esteemed judgment cited as "Rehmat Ali through Legal Representatives v. Muhammad Younas and others" (PLD 2014 SC 680) has dealt with this situation which is complete answer to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In another judgment "Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through LRs and others" (PLD 2007 SC 302), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has finally concluded, that in case the time, date and place regarding the knowledge of the sale and raising jumping demand is missing, the pre-emptor is not entitled to agitate the right of pre-emption qua the sale.
10. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently concluded that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his right of preemption and has also failed to fulfill the required talabs as per law there is hardly any reason to interfere there with.
11. Resultantly, this civil revision stands dismissed with no order as to cost.