' Instant revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13-11-1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chiniot whereby he dismissed the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 17 Kanals and 16 Marlas, described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, was purchased by the defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 4 from respondent/defendant No,5 vide Mutation No,797, dated 29-4-1991. He alleged that the suit land has actually been sold for Rs,50,000 but an ostensible sale price of Rs,1,00,000 was mentioned just to frustrate his superior right of pre-emption. He claimed his superior right of pre-emption being an owner in the estate, a co-sharer in the Khata as well as on the ground of contiguity. He asserted that vendees were devoid of any such qualification. He asked the vendees to accept his superior right of pre-emption and hand over the possession of suit land. As they refused to accept his request, he served them with notice of Talabe-Ishhad on 7-7-1991. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4 who raised few preliminary objections and also controverted the contentions of the petitioner/plaintiff on merits.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption? OPP.
(2) Whether this suit has not been correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.
(3) Whether this suit is collu4ve and has been filed for the interest DI -vendor? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right of pre-emption by his act, and conduct? OPD.
(5) Whether the defendants-vendees are entitled to recover the expenses worth Rs,15,000 in attestation of Mutation No,797, dated 29-4-1991? OPD.
(6) Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Talab? OPP.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? OPP.
(8) Relief.
4. In support of his stand, the plaintiff/petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, Akbar as P.W.2 and Muhammad Yusaf Khiali, Advocate as P.W.3: In rebuttal, one of the defendants/respondents Khan Muhammad appeared as D.W.1 and then closed their evidence.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13-11-1993. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot vide judgment and decree dated 12-3-1996. Hence the instant civil revision.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that he has be-ti non-suited mainly on the ground of non, fulfilment of requirements of Talabs, as contemplated by section 13 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991. He argued that it has been brought on record through the statement of P.W.3 Muhammad Yousaf Khiali, Advocate that he had issued notice Exh.P/3, so it proves that compliance of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 has been made. He submits that both the Courts below vr-rc not justified in passing the orders under revision.
8. Conversely, the impugned orders have been supported by learned counsel for the defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 4. His contention is that neither the plaint nor the statement of Allah Yar (P.W.1) contains the date, time and place of acquiring knowledge about the sale, that no notice, as contemplated by section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, has been served upon the other party. While elaborating his contention, he submits that sale took place vide Mutation No,797 on 29-4-1991 wheres the alleged notice Exh.P.3 has been served on 7-7-1991, that per law the said notice is to be served within 15 days from the date of knowledge of sale which is either evident from the contents of plaint nor from the statement of P.W.1 Allah Yar, that such notice given on 7-7- 1991 cannot be considered to have been issued as required by law, that as such Courts below have passed he impugned orders in accordance with law d placed reliance upon Khudai Rahim v. Abdul Sattar and 6 others (1998 SCM R 956). He, thus,, submitted that there is no force in this revision and the same be dismissed.
9. A perusal of the plaint clearly reveals that neither the date nor time nor place of acquiring the knowledge of sale is incorporated in it. Statement of the plaintiff/ petitioner also is silent on that account. A prerequisite for filing a suit for possession rough pre-emption is the compliance of provisions of section 13(3) of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 which require that notice f Talab-e- Ishhad has to be served upon the other party within fifteen days from the date of knowledge. The plaint does not disclose as when the plaintiff/petitioner came to know about the alleged sale. Thus, it cannot be held with certainty that alleged notice Exh.P.3 was wen within the stipulated period as required by section 13(3) of the Act. It has been held by the Apex Court in the authority referred above that if a plaint fails to disclose the time, date and place of acquiring knowledge and notice of Talab-e-Ishhad is not proved, then a pre-emptor cannot succeed.
10. In the light of facts stated above, it is proved that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law. There is no force in this Civil Revision and the same is hereby dismissed.