' This judgment, recorded in Civil Revision No,22 of 1997 shall also determine the fate of Civil Revisions Nos.23 and 24 of 1997, as law and facts involved in all the revisions are common.
2. Hameedullah Khan purchased an area of 6 Marlas out of Khata No,90/326-327, bearing Khasra No,556/687 situate in village Nar Dalasa Shah, by virtue of Mutation No,26, attested on 24-7-1995.
Similarly, Aslam Khan purchased land, measuring 31 Kanals and 3 Marlas, represented by Field Survey Nos.556 and 687 to the extent of 587/3738 shares equivalent to one Kanal, 7 Marlas, situated in the same Village through Mutation No,29, sanctioned on 24-7-1995. Likewise, Mst. Mira, wife of Aslam Khan, got by way of sale of land, measuring 6-1/2 Marlas out of Khasra No,766, situated in the same village, vide Mutation No,30, dated 24-7-1995. Hikmat Ali Shah took exception to the sale transactions and filed separate suits to enforce his right of pre-emption, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, claiming to be co-sharer and owner of adjacent land. The suits were resisted on various pleas both technical and factual, but for the purpose of the present controversy, issue No,6 which is to the effect whether the plaintiff has made Talabs in accordance with law of pre-emption in each case is relevant. On consideration of evidence, the learned trial Judge obliged the plaintiff by granting decree in each case for possession through pre-emption vides judgment and decree, dated 13-6-1996. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, vendees preferred Appeals Nos.92/13, 93/13. And 94/13 of 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bannu who in turn entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge, Bannu. The learned appellate Court accepted the appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees and dismissed the suits of the plaintiff on 20-11-1996, by giving findings against the plaintiff on issue No,6 in that he held that omission to mention time, date and place of Talh-e-Muwathibat as well as informer's name in the plaint, was fatal and despatching of photo copies instead of original of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad is not a valid notice.
Hence the three revisions.
3. As regards the mentioning of time, date, place and name of person in the plaint, in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Ameer Jan and 3 others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1997 SC 883 in C.A. No,560 of 1995 titled Zarghoon Shah v.
Muhammad Yaqoob Khan decided on 25-6-1998, also in C.P.As. Nos.44, 573 and 574 of 1997, decided on 30-4-1998 and decision of this Court in Civil Revision No,70 of 1997 Haji Abdullah v. Haji Abdul Majid decided on 25-11-1998, it is not necessary for plaintiff' in a pre-emption suit to mention in the plaint the details of Talb-i-Muwathibat" with regard to time, date, place and the person in whose presence declaration of intention to pre-emption the sale. It is sufficient to allege in the plaint that after having come to know of sale, he (pre-emptor) declared his intention to pre-empt the sale and sent notice of Talb-i-Ishhad through registered post acknowledgement due.
4. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly so in view of the candid admission made by his client while appearing in the witness-box that the original notice of Talb-i- Ishhad was not sent and photo copy was posted to the vendees. The question for determination is that whether despatch of photo copy of notice of Talb-i-lshhad is valid. Under subsection (3) of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, soon after making Talb-i-Muwathibat but not later than two weeks, from the date of sale or knowledge which ever may be earlier, the pre-emptor is required to make Talb-i-Ishhad by sending a notice in writing attested by two witnesses under registered cover A.D. To the vendee, confirming his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption. A bare reading of this mandatory provision regarding Talb-i-Ishhad makes it abundantly clear by such notice in writing attested by two witnesses and to be sent through registered post. The requirement of statutory provision regarding notice must be completely observed in order of valid and proper notice. It is by now well-established that method of giving notice is prescribed by a Statute, such method is exclusive and there must be total compliance with the prescribed form and method. I am supported in my view by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in case E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf reported as PLD 1964 SC 536, wherein it was held as under:-- "It is difficult to accept upon the wording of this section that such a notice could even be implied notice or information received aliunde. In the face of the language of the proviso which requires that the notice should be served 'by registered post (acknowledgement due)', such an interpretation is not possible. To hold that, notwithstanding such clear and unambiguous, words, even implied notice would be sufficient to render the words by registered post (acknowledgement due)' in the proviso redundant, which cannot be done. Every word in a statute has to be given a meaning, and the only meaning that these words are capable of bearing is that express notice in writing must be given in the manner prescribed."
' Similarly, it was held in PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 37 that a method prescribed and particularized by a Statute, should be performed according to that method alone. Again following the case of E.A.
Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf it was observed in NLR 1979 (Civil) 178:-- "It is established principle of law that if a thing is ordered to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that manner or not at all and doing something which is in conflict with that would be unlawful."
' Clearly, the requirement of section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption. Act, 1987 is that the vendee should be served with original notice of Talb-iIshhad, which, sadly, in the instant case is lacking as the plaintiff retained the original notice with himself and sent photo copy of the same to the vendee. Photo copy cannot be treated as original and this is clear, from the illustration (a) of Article 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat which expressly states that a photo copy is secondary evidence of its contents. This provision of law clearly suggests that photo copy of a document cannot take the place of a primary evidence and it is simply secondary evidence. Article 165 of the Qanun-e- Shandat does not benefit the petitioner for short and simple reason that under this provision, the Court has discretion to, allow production of any evidence that may have become available because of modern device or technique while in the instant case no such permission was granted and indeed it could not be granted as photo copy is secondary evidence of its contents.
5. In view of the discussions made above, it becomes crystal clear that the three suits filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed for want of non- C compliance of section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P.
Pre-emption Act, 1987.
' Finding no substances, the revision petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.