Brief facts giving rise to revision petition in hand are that Aamer Mehmood (minor) son of Mushtaq Ahmad through his father purchased land measuring 3.2 Marlas bearing Plot No,S-101 situated in Sector No,2, Kangra Colony, Tehsil and District Haripur vide sale-deed No, 394 registered on 5- 5.1993 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Haripur, Muhammad Zarin, the petitioner/plaintiff filed Suit No,247/1 of 1993 for possession through preemption in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Haripur. The suit was resisted by the respondent, After framing the issues, two P,Ws: were also examined when on 25-7-1995 the respondent/defendant submitted an application to the trial Court for rejection of plaint on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff had not given the details in the plaint regarding time and place of notice of Talb-i-Muwathibat'. The petitioner submitted reply of the application and also filed an application on 31-10-1995 mentioning therein the name of the person through whom he had come to know about the sale and time and date of gaining the knowledge of sale and sought permission to amend his plaint in order to mention the aforesaid details, The learned trial Court vide order dated 27.2-1996 rejected the application of respondent/defendant for rejection of plaint and accepted the application filed by petitioner for amendment of plaint on payment of Rs,200.
2. Being aggrieved of the order dated 27-2-1996, the respondent/defendant filed appeal (No,12/14 of 1996) in the Court of learned District Judge, Haripur. The appeal filed by respondent/defendant was accepted by the learned District Judge, Haripur vide order dated 16-11-1996. The order dated 27-2-1996 whereby application of petitioner for amendment of plaint allowed, was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. The petitioner has now assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Haripur dated 16-11-1996 through the revision petition in hand.
3. Mr. Muhammad Younas Khan Tanoli, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the learned District Judge, Haripur non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that his plaint did not contain the particulars regarding date, time and place of 'Talb-i- Muwathibat'. It is not necessary to mention the details in the plaint, hence the impugned order/judgment/decree of learned District Judge, Haripur is against law and dictum laid down by superior Courts.
4. Mr. Muhammad Isttail Tanoli, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand, supported the judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge, Haripur.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner/plaintiff has been non-suited by the learned District Judge, Haripur on the sole ground that he has not mentioned the time, place, date and names of the witnesses in whose presence 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' was made. In view of the recent judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court, it is not sine qua non for the pre-emptor to specify in the plaint the time, place, date and the names of the witnesses in whose presence Talb-i-Muwathibar under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (X of 1987, was made by the pre-emptor.
7. The question as to whether it is sine qua non for the pre-emptor to specify In the plaint the names of the witnesses in whose presence 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' under section 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Preemption Act (X of 1987) was made by the pre-emptor and the place, date and time of making the 'Talabs', came up before august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No,44 of 1997 (Sar Anjam v. Abdur Raziq), Civil Appeal No,573 of 1997 (Shakirullah v. Aminullah) and Civil Appeal No,574 of 1997 (Muhammad [shall Khan v. Amir Nawaz Khan). Their Lordships after discussing various judgments held in paragraph No,10 of their judgment: "The above survey of case-law would, thus, lead us to the conclusion that the pleadings of the parties should contain only material facts and are, therefore, not required to contain the gist of evidence and names of witnesses." Similarly, in paragraph No,12 it was held: "We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that it is not a sine qua non for a pre-emptor to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses in whose presence he had made 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and also specify the time and place of making the 'Talabs' under section 13 of the Act."
8. Similarly in case Amir Jan and 3 others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1997 SC 883 it was held: "No, doubt Order 6, Rule 2, C.P.C. Provides that material facts are to be stated in pleadings but it does not mean that evidence through which such material fact is to be proved shall also be stated in pleadings. In our view it would be sufficient requirement of law if it is alleged in the pleadings that after having come to know of sale the pre-emptor declared his intention to pre-empt the sale. This material fact has to be proved at the trial through evidence on the issue framed in this regard." Likewise a Single Bench of this Court in C.R. No,22 of 1995 (Bashir Ahmed and others v. Murtaza Khan) has also held that it is not necessary for the pre-emptor to mention the time, date; place and the names of the witnesses in the plaint.
9. Keeping in view the recent judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court, the order of the learned District Judge, Haripur is not sustainable. The petition in hand is accepted and the impugned order dated 1 6-1 1-1996 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits strictly in accordance with law. 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.