ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. By means of this judgment I intend to dispose of above titled revision petition filed by the petitioner whereby the petitioner challenged judgments and decrees dated 31st January, 2018 and 11th September, 2018, (impugned judgments and decrees) passed by learned Qazi Lasbella at Uthal and learned Majlis-e-Shoora Lasbella at Hub, (trial and appellate court), whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and appeal filed also met with the same fate.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondents/ defendants before the trial court in respect of land bearing khasra No. 156, 164 measuring 10-3-22 acres situated at Mouza Liary, Tehsil Liary District Lasbella, which was contested by the respondents/ defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on legal as well as factual grounds, whereas respondents/ defendants Nos. 4 to 21 despite service could not appeared and proceeded against ex-parte. The trial court framed issues, on which the petitioner/plaintiff produced his evidence.
Whereafter, the learned trial court heard arguments and thereafter, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31st January, 2018 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff. Being aggrieved the petitioner/ plaintiff filed appeal before appellate court, but same was also dismissed, hence the petitioner/plaintiff is before this court.
3. Heard and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The record reveals that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption for land bearing khasra Nos. 156, 164 measuring 10-3-22 acres situated at Mouza Liary, Tehsil Liary District Lasbella, before Qazi Lasbella at Uthal stating therein that the respondents/ defendants Nos. 4 to 21 have sold out land in question to respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 3 without any intimation to the petitioner/plaintiff and his co-sharers because the petitioner/plaintiff has a superior right of pre-emption over the land in question. The trial court struck off the defence of respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants filed review application for re-calling of order dated 11th September, 2015, but the review application was dismissed. Being aggrieved the respondents/defendants filed Civil Revision Petition No. 321 of 2015 before this court which was accepted vide order dated 30th August, 2017 and the orders of the trial court dated 1 1 th September, 2015 and 15th October, 2015 were set aside with direction to afford opportunity to respondents/defendants to file written statement. The respondents/ defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement, repudiated the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff. After full-fledged trial the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31st January, 2018 dismissed the suit. The appeal was also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 11th September, 2018.
4. The performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat is question of fact. The petitioner/plaintiff/pre-emptor produced witnesses before the trial court. The courts below appreciated the evidence of the parties and hold that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the case. The courts below had appreciated the evidence minutely and thereafter, had arrived at concurrent conclusion. The Talb- e-Muwathibat is not mere formality. The right of pre-emption was not taken lightly. The petitioner/plaintiff should tell the date and time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint and prove that the petitioner/plaintiff performed Talb-e-Muwathibat in the same meeting.
Whereas the petitioner/plaintiff failed to perform the Talb-e-Muwathibat according to law. The evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff is self contradictory. From their statements neither the requirement of Talb-e-Muwathibat nor Talb-i-Ishhad have been proved. Reliance is placed on case Mst. Kharia Bibi v. Mst. Zakia Begum 2007 SCMR 515, wherein it was observed by Honorably Supreme Court that:-- "7. --- In this behalf it may be noted that by the time it is well-settled that the particulars regarding the place, time and date of the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat are required to be mentioned in the pleadings with the object of such observation in the judgment that in order to determine the question of limitation it is necessary to know exact date and time when Talb-e- Muwathiba, was performed and it is also necessary to perform Talb-e-Muwathibat because according to law after performing Talb-e-' Muwathibat within 14 days notice of Talb-e-Ishhad has to be issued.
Admittedly in the instant case no such details were mentioned in the pleadings, therefore, following the law on the subject reported in different cases including Haji Muhammad Saleem v.
Khuda Bukhsh PLD 2003 SC 315, Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1231, Akbar Ali Khan v. Mukammal Shah and others 2005 SCMR 431, Atiqur Reham and others through their real father v. Muhammad Amin PLD 2006 SC 309 and a recent judgment in C.P. 822 of 2006 dated 20th September, 2006 pronounced by the Bench, of which one of us (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice) is a member, we are of the opinion that learned Additional District Judge had rightly directed for dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent/ pre-emptor."
5. The important aspect of the case is that the required Talbs have not been made according to Muslim Personal Law i.e. right of pre-emption of a person shall be extinguish unless the demand of pre-emption of such person made out. The right of pre-emption of a person shall be extinguished unless such person make demand of pre-emption in the following manner:--. i. Talb-i-Ishhad means immediate demand by pre-emptor in the same sitting (Majlis) in which he has came to know of sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption; ii. Talb-i-Ishhad means demand by establishing evidence; iii. Talb-i-Khusumat means demand by filing a suit.
Reliance is placed on case Nasrullah v. Muhammad Rasool 2014 CLC 1323, in which it was held: "7. The above would make it clear that first demand Talb-e-Muwathibat is to be made in the same meeting and without loss of any time, in the present case the appellant at paragraphs Nos. 7 and 10 of the plaint has pleaded as under:--- "That soon after the knowledge of said transaction among the defendants, the plaintiff along with the two notables of the area went on the land in question and loudly asserted his right of pre- emption by performing jumping demand and also intimated the defendants through legal registered A/D Notice on 11th August, 2009 about the right of pre-emption of plaintiff and the reply of the same is still awaited.
That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against -the defendants initially when the defendants No.1 purchased the land in question from defendants Nos.2 to 6 and thereafter it accrued when defendant No.1 transferred the same in the name of defendant No.7 and lastly it accrued when on 6-8-2009 for the first time. The defendant No.7 -started erection of wall on the land in question and was requested to stop doing so who refused flatly within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court which is competent to adjudicate upon the matter."
8. The above paras of the plaint reveal that appellant/plaintiff when learnt about the sale transaction amongst the respondents has not declared his intention nor asserted the right of pre- emption immediately on receiving information of the sale/exchange but he went to the suit-land to claim right of pre-emption in the presence of notables this is not Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law. Reference can be made to Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Tahir and 6 others 1990 MLD 2399 herein it was held as under: - "It will be seen from the above admissions that 'Talb-e-Mowasibat' was made immediately after the appellant came to know about this deal. Accordirg to Muslim Law by Saksena 'Talb-e- Mowasibat' or immediate demand literally means demand of jumping by which pre-emptor should make immediate assertion of his right on getting the information of the transfer of the property. The expression clearly shows that the right of pre-emption must be asserted with the utmost promptitude. The case of Monajal v. Shafiullah and others, reported in PLD 1964 Dacca 640 (is an important authority on this subject, wherein it was held:- 'A person entitled to pre-emption must make the immediate claim to the right of pre-emption called Talb-e-Muwathibat as soon as the fact of sale is known to him. The right is lost if there be any delay in claiming it'.
After examining the available case-law on this point Idris, J. observed as follows:-- In the present case, plaintiff did not make the immediate demand, that is, he did not perform the ceremony of Talb-e-Mowasibat immediately on coming to know of the sale in the Registration Office, but he went to the land at the distance of 2-1/2 miles and there made the claim. As the Talb-e-Muwathibat was not made instantly on coming to know of the sale, the right of pre- emption was lost:"
The petitioner/plaintiff did not perform demand of jumping instantly. The requirement of Talb-i- Muwathibat remained unsatisfied and petitioner/ plaintiff lost right of pre-emption. The concurrent findings of the courts below are based on valid reasons. No non-reading or misreading of evidence is involved in the case warranting interference by this court.
In view of above the impugned judgments and decrees dated 31st January, 2018 and 11th September, 2018, passed by learned Qazi Lasbella at Uthal and learned Majlis-e-Shoora Lasbella at Hub, are upheld and instant petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.