1. Through the captioned writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 judgment and decree dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Dadyal, through which suit filed by petitioner herein for possession of the land on the basis of prior purchase was dishonoured, has been assailed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts and grounds already taken in the writ petition and submitted that plaintiff in para No. 4 of the plaint has categorically mentioned that on 26.02.2020 he came to know regarding sale of land in question and on 06.03.2020 in presence of Muhammad Farooq, Sagheer Ahmed, Muhammad Akmal and Muhammad Bashir he made demand of pre-emption at the house of vendee and on 20.03.2020 issued notice in this regard, hence the requirements of Talbs were fulfilled but the Court below wrongly rejected the suit filed by petitioners herein through the impugned order which is not sustainable.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree on all counts and prayed for dismissal of het instant writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
5. Under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Pre-emption Act, 2016, it is a mandatory requirement that a person who claims the right of pre-emption shall make demands of pre-emption as Talb-i- Muwathibat, Talb-i-Ishhad and Talb-i-Khusumat, failing which his right of pre-emption shall he extinguished. Talb-i-Muwathibat means immediate demand by a pre-emotor in the sitting or meeting (majlis) in which he comes to know of the sale, declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. In the instant case, plaintiff himself mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint that he came to know regarding sale deed dated 17.01.2020 on 26.02.2020 and he made demand of pre- emption on 06.03.2020, thus he failed to demand Talb-i-Muwathibat in the sitting or meeting in which he came to know of the sale deed dated 17.01.2020, hence the suit was liable to be of rejected for violation of mandatory requirement of law. The learned Court below in this regard has rightly placed reliance on 1995 CLC 1924. gIt is a well settled precept of law that missing of performance of any of Talb in the manner as indicated by law would be fatal and would result into the dismissal of suit. My this view finds support from 2016 CLC 1229 wherein in para 6 it has been held as under:
6. Missing of performance of one talb is fatal and injurious to the appellants and when the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat as per dictates of law, no decree for possession through pre-emption can be passed in their favour. Reliance is placed on Mst. Sahib Jamala v. Fazal Subhan and 11 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 977)."
6. It is also an axiomatic precept of law that the plaintiff has to mention the date, time, place and manner of getting information regarding sale deed but in making demands in the instant case the plaintiffs failed to mention the time, place and source of getting knowledge regarding sale deed, hence, on this ground too, the suit was liable to be rejected. Reliance may be placed on 2016 CLC 1229, wherein at page 1232, it has been held as under: "In addition to the above, mentioning and proving of time, date and place of imparting information and making of jumping demand is sine qua non in order to succeed in a suit for possession on the basis of pre-emption, which is lacking in this case, as stated above. Reliance in this regard is place on Mian Pir Muhammad and another's case (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302), reiterated/confirmed in recent judgments reported as (2013 SCMR 721) and Dr. Pir Muhammad Khan v. Khuda Bukhsh and others (2015 SCMR 1243).
7. The argument advanced by the learned counsel For the petitioner the petitioner should be given opportunity to prove his case regarding Talbs, has no substance because the petitioner has not mentioned the time and source of getting knowledge regarding sate deed, hence, he cannot be allowed to produce evidence beyond pleadings as it is well settled now that a party can only be allowed to prove facts already pleaded in his pleadings and any evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered, hence, the argument is repelled.
8. After going through impugned judgment and record of the case, I am of the view that he impugned judgment is quite justified because the mandatory requirement of law regarding Talb-i- Muwathibat has been violation and plaintiff also failed to mention in the plaint the time, place and source of getting Knowledge regarding the sale deed. I do not find any irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, thus the same deserves to be maintained.
9. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the captioned writ petition is hereby dismissed.