ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, J.:- Through this single judgment, I intend to decide all the above mentioned civil revisions as in all these petitions same question of law and fact is involved.
2. Precise facts of the case are that pre-emptors/respondents filed four suits of possession through pre-emption challenging four different sale mutations against petitioners/vendees. After filing of the suit, the petitioners/vendees filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that the requisite ingredients of Talb-e-Muwathibat was not fulfilled as the "place " of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat was not mentioned in the plaint, hence, the suit is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected.
3. The respondents/pre-emptors filed an application for amendment in all the plaints. Both these applications were decided jointly by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 10.02.2010 whereby the proposed amendment was not allowed, and consequently the plaint was rejected on the said defect in pleadings. The pre - emptors/respondents filed separate appeals against these judgments and decrees which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 17.04.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/vendee agitated through instant Civil Revision.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Undeniably the contents of the plaint in all the four suits reveals that in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint there is no mentioning of the "place " where the pre-emptors performed their alleged performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat . By non-mentioning the "exact place" in the plaint, the petitioners/vendees having accrued with the right to challenge the validity of defective plaint, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 30.10.2009. Facing with this crucial aspect the respondents/pre-emptors having tackled with the situation by filing an afterthought application for amendment of pleadings on 02.02.2010 with the assertion that they have inadvertently not mentioned the "place " of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaints, therefore, they be allowed to amend the pleadings.
6. I have examined the contention of the respondents with respect to effect of amen dment of pleadings in the plaint of pre emption. There is no denial with this settled proposition that in the case of "Mian Pir Muhammad Vs. Faqir Muhammad through L.R.s and others" (PLD 2007 SC 302) it has been held that mentioning of particulars as to "date", "time" and "place " of making talbs are sine qua non for a successful pre-emptory action, and in case of failure, would always invariably be fatal for the pre-emptor . This dictum was followed with persistency in the judgments "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Yousaf " (2012 SCMR 911), "Mst. Imtiaz Begum and others v. Mst.
Sultan Jan" (2008 SCMR 1268 ), "Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Fateh Muhammad" (2007 SCMR 336), "MUHAMMAD ALI and 7 others vs. Mst. HUMERA FATIMA and 2 others" (2013 SCMR 178), "Dr. PIR MUHAMMAD KHAN versus KHUDA BAKHSH and others" (2015 SCMR 1243 ). The latest citation "MUHAMMAD ANW AR vs. SAFEER AHMED and 5 others "(2017 SCMR 404) further elaborated and emphasized the necessity of mentioning the particulars with the following observations:- "It is now settled law that Talb-i-Muwathibat is a sine qua non for maintaining a Suit for Possession through Pre-emption. It is equally settled law that in the plaint, the time, date and place of Talb-i-Muwathibat must necessarily be pleaded along with the source of information of the sale pre-empted, as has been held by this Court in the judgments, reported as Muhammad Ismail (supra), Mst. Imtiaz Begum and others (supra) and Abdul Aziz (supra)."
7. Admittedly , the respondents/pre-emptors have accepted their non-performance of the requisite detail of "place " where Talb-e Muwathibat has been performed and the essential principle of "place " when missing in the plaint then they have to face the music for this omission. The learned trial Court while evaluating the pleadings have considered that in presence of this material defect the cause of action to the pre-emptors have not accrued and in such circumstances the further proceedings in the matter is mere a futile exercise and thus the plaint was rightly rejected.
8. The effect of rectification of the plaint on the basis of proposed amendment of the pleadings have taken the pivotal position in the instant case. The question hinges "whether the plaint be allowed to amend subsequently for filling up afterthought lacunas ". To meet with the requirements of talbs as elaborated by the judgment of the Apex Court the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon "GHULAM NABI vs. Sardar NAZIR AHMAD" (1985 SCMR 824) treated that non-mentioning of the "place " for performance of Talb-e Muwathibat mere an accidental or clerical error or omission which had inadvertently crept into the plaint at the time of its presentation. I am not inclined with the observation with referenc e to the case law cited by the petitioner . The referred citation reveals that in the said plaint arithmetical mistake of mentioning of khasra number is in question, therefore, the Apex Court while allowing the order of amendment hold that the mentioning of wrong Khasra number is a mere accidental slip or omission or clerical mistake which can be allowed to be rectified. Whereas in the instant proposition the case is altogether different and pre-requisite of talbs i.e. "place of performance " of Talb-e-Muwathibat were not mentioned explicitly in the plaints. As such it is held that this fact of performance of Talb-e Muwathibat at a particular "place " is a sine qua non and when this omission has been occurred either deliberately or inadvertently , it cannot be allowed to amend afterthought.
9. As I have earlier mentioned that amendment in the pleadings sought by the respondents when the pre - emptors/respondents on the basis of this fatal aspect filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, therefore, its insertion in the plaint be clearly visualized that the same was filed for filling-up the lacuna and if this amendment is to be allowed then the whole super-structure of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 will not be sustained. Reliance can be placed upon "KARAMA T ALI SHAHZAD vs. MUHAMM AD ZULQARNAIN and 4 others" (PLD 2009 Lahore 356). For enunciation of this wisdom I have also sought guidance from the enshrined case law "GHULAM YASIN and others vs. AJAB GUL" (2013 SCMR 23) whereas the amendment with regard to the necessary mentioning of particulars as to "date", "time" and "place " of making of Talbs and their necessity of mentioning in the plaint has been elaborately discussed. The view observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan bearing direct ef fect on the lis in hand which is worth mentioning and the same is reproduced below: - "Quite apart from this since a pre-emption case under the latest dispensation is more like a criminal case and a plaint in the former is almost like an F.I.R. in the latter , no omission however , fatal it may be, can be allowed to be supplied by means of amendment. In case it is done by means of amendment, it would open room for additions, afterthoughts and improvements which would go ad infinitum. Neither the pre-em ption nor the criminal case with this modus operandi would admit of an end in the mundane existence of the parties. We, therefore, have committed no error much less patent on the face of the record by declining the prayer for amendment of plaint and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner ."
10. The leaned appellate Court while allowing the pre- emptors/respondents to amend the pleadings to make up the deficiency , shortcoming in the suit is not sustainable as the same fall in the change of nature and complexion which was originally filed by the pre-emptors/respondents. Therefore, the view rendered by the learned appellate Court is not sustainable and the same is hereby reversed by reviving the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 10.12.2010.
11. Upshot of the above discussion is that the learned appellate Court have not exercised its powers judiciously while ascertaining the validity of impugned judgment and decree and reversed the findings of the learned Civil Judge illegally which was validly expressed by the learned Civil Judge. Thus, I am of the considered view that the learned appellant court while allowing the proposed amendment acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with grave illegality and material irregularity on the basis of erroneous and unreasonable view. Therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction meant for correction of illegal orders, I have no other option left except to allow these civil revisions, the same are allowed. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 17.04.2012 are set-aside while the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge dated 10.12.2010 are hereby revived. upheld with no order as to costs.