' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment, dated 10-2-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Civil Revision No,21-D of 1999.
2. Briefly stated the factual background of the title appeal is that in a suit for possession by pre- emption of the disputed land sold by means of Mutation No,3512 attested on 30-1-1994, Nadir Khan petitioner filed a suit wherein it was claimed that he had got the knowledge of sale on 8-2-1994 when he made Talb-i-Muwathibat and later on the same day made 'Talb-iIshhad' in the presence of witnesses followed by a due notice therefor. The suit was, inter alia, resisted on the ground that the requisite Talabs were not made in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1990. Both the Courts below non-suited the appellant by concluding that the requisite Talabs had not been made. Feeling dissatisfied, it appears, the appellant challenged the judgment of the two Courts below in C.R. No,21-D of 1999 in learned High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court while dismissing the civil revision giving rise to the title appeal upheld the finding of the two Courts below on the point of 'Talabs' having not been made validly in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment and observed as under:-- ' "In para. 3 of he plaint, the petitioner asserted that he acquired knowledge of sale on 8-2-1994 but did not make mention of either time, place or the names of the persons in the Majlis, where he allegedly acquired knowledge of sale or made Talb-i-Muwathibat. In para.4, it was claimed that after Talb-i-Muwathibat, the petitioner on the same day, in the presence of Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar made Talb-i-Ishhad and sent notice for making second Talab. The perusal of the plaint shows that the petitioner did not claim that Tariq Mahmood had informed him in the sale or that he made Talb-i-Muwathibat in the presence of Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar Khan. In fact two separate paragraphs have been devoted to discuss separately making of alleged Talb-i- Muwathibat and Talb-iIshhad. Para 3 of the plaint which pertains to the making of Talb- iMuwathibat, does not make reference to Tariq Mahmood as informer of sale nor mentions presence of the abovenamed two persons at the time of making of first alleged Talab. Similarly, para.4, where the names of Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar are given makes reference to notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. If Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar had been present at the time of first Talab then either their names should have been mentioned in para. 3 of the plaint or the petitioner could have stated in para. 4 that in the presence of same witnesses, Talb-i-Ishhad was allegedly made. The two assertions and alleged occurrence having been referred to separately leaves no room of doubt that neither Tariq Mahmood was informed nor Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar were present at the time of alleged Talb-i-Muwathibat. In his examination-in-chief, the petitioner does not make mention of presence of any person at the time of the alleged Talb-i-Muwathibat nor mentioned the presence of Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar. It is only in the cross-examination that he tried to prove his case by introducing the name of Tariq Mahmood son of Ghulam Sarwar as informer. In view of the position taken in the plaint, the oral evidence, which was not in line with the stand taken in the plaint, was not worthy of any credence and was rightly discarded. Even otherwise, as noted supra, neither in the plaint nor in the notice Exh.P.2, the name of the alleged informer was mentioned. In both these documents, the presence of Tariq Mahmood and Allah Yar was not claimed at the time of alleged Talb-i-Muwathibat nor time and place where the alleged information of sale was received or the first Talab was made was mentioned in the plaint and the notice. The two Courts below, therefore after considering the accumulative effect of the entire evidence rightly concluded that the petitioner had failed in proving requisite Talabs and had thus extinguished his right of pre-emption. No misreading of the evidence could be pointed out."
3. Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider whether it is mandatory to give in the plaint of the suit for possession by pre-emption, the particulars and details of date, time and place of making Talb-i-Muwathibat and also disclose the names of the witnesses in whose presence this Talab was made.
4. Mr. Muhammad -Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of this appeal placed, inter alia, reliance on the two at least pronouncements of this Court on the proposition raised in this appeal is Sar .Anjam v. Abdul Raziq (1999 SCM R 2167) and a Full Bench judgment of five learned Judges in this Court including the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, titled Haji Noor Muhammad through his legal heirs v. Abdul Ghani and 2 others 2000 SCM R 329.
5. As against this, Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent, placed implicit reliance on the case of Khani Zaman v. Shah Hussain and others (PLD 1998 SC 121) to argue that date and time of making Talb-i-Muwathibat and disclosing the names of the two witnesses in whose presence the Talb-i-Muwathibat was a sine qua non for proving Talbi-Muwathibat.
6. The proposition on which leave has been granted, has since been finally set at rest by the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, in the case of Sar Anjam and Haji Noor Muhammad (supra). In the former case in the similar factual background after relying on a number of authorities from the case of Moti Lal Poddar v. Judhistir Das Teor and others (AIR 1916 Calcutta 658) to a more recent case of Abdul Maleque Laskar v. Begum Tayabunnessa and others (PLD 1966 Dacca 217), it was resolved 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 and that the suit for pre-emption is no exception to this general proposition which is by now well-entrenched in our judicial system. This judgment was authored by one of us (Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J.). This judgment by two Judges was approved later on by the five Hon'ble Judges of this Court, in the case of Haji Noor Muhammad (supra) wherein after a great deal of discussion and the examination of the recent case-law, concluded as under:-- "6. We confirm the view taken earlier by this Court that the pleadings may refer to the material facts but the law does not require the pleadings to contain gist of all the facts and names of witnesses of the plaintiff and that the suit for pre-emption is not an exception to such general principles, which is well-established in our jurisprudence.
' We are, therefore; unable to endorse the view taken in the impugned judgment of the High Court that the requirements of Talb-iMuwathibat cannot be fulfilled unless details, particulars, date, time and place are also specifically mentioned in the plaint and the names of the persons in whose presence such Talab is made is also mentioned therein.
' In the instant case plaintiff had specifically referred in the plaint to the two Talabs having been made. The plaintiff could not be non-suited merely on the ground that other details of time and place of the Talabs, and names of witnesses etc. Had not been specifically mentioned in the plaint.
It may be added that in case defendants/respondents had any difficulty in filing their written statement, they could apply to the trial Court for further and better particulars by filing an appropriate application under Order VI, rule 5, C.P.C. No such request was made by the respondents and they filed their written statement without taking any plea therein that they had been prejudiced on account of any details or particulars having not been given in the plaint."
7. It would thus be seen in the instant case too, that the deceased appellant had specifically referred in the plaint to the 'Talabs' having been made. He could not have been non-suited merely on the ground that time and place of the 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and the names of 'the witnesses thereto etc. Had not been specifically disclosed in the plaint.
8. Again the appellant had specifically referred to the making of the 'Talabs' in the plaint. Copy of the notice 'Talb-i-Ishhad' as envisaged under section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991) had been produced in evidence on which no cross-examination had been directed nor any objection had been raised thereto by the respondent.
9. As a result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments, dated 10-2-1999 rendered by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court and those of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 13-10-1998 and the learned trial Court, dated 18-6-1997 are set aside and the suit of the appellant/pre-emptor is decreed on payment of Rs,1,05,000 to be deposited within a month but not later than 21-12-2000. Of course after deduction of Zar-i-Panjum deposited by the appellant, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.