IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment/decree, dated 20th October, 2001 passed by High Court of Balochistan, Circuit Bench at Sibi, whereby Civil Revision No,(S)18 of 2001 was allowed, as a result whereof judgment/decree of the Majlis-e-Shoora, dated 12th August, 2000 was set aside and judginent/decree of Qazi Bhag, dated 20th May, 2000 was restored whereby suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that on 19th January, 2000, petitioner instituted a suit for possession through right of pre-emption in respect of the property, details whereof were mentioned in the plaint against the respondents/defendants. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statements. However, ultimately, learned trail Court i,e, Qazi Bhag on observing codal formalities, vide judgment/decree, dated 20th May, 2000 dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved from judgment/decree of the trial Court, petitioner preferred appeal before Majlis- e-Shoora, Dera Murad Jamali, District Nasirabad, which was allowed on 12th August, 2000. Against the judgment/decree of Appellate Court, respondent No,1 preferred a civil revision, which has been allowed, vide impugned judgment/decree. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, learned counsel stated that the petitioner has been non-suited by learned High Court for the reason that his witnesses failed to mention about the performance of Talb-e- Muwasibat while performing Talb-e-Ishhad. According to him sufficient material was available on record to draw inference that Talb-e-Muwasibat was duly made and thereafter in order to enforce his right of pre-emption, he performed Talb-eIshhad in presence of witnesses P.Ws. Wali Muhammad and Haji. Petitioner approached the respondent No,1 with the request that he should accept the sale consideration and leave property for him.
4. Mr. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record appearing for Caveator stated that factually neither the Talb-e-Muwasibat nor the Talb-e-Ishhad has been proved in accordance with the prevailing practice. According to him, in order to confirm whether Talb-e-Muwasibat has been performed, the petitioner's witnesses namely P.Ws.-Wali Muhammad and Haji were required to make its reference while performing the Talb-e-Ishhad at the time when the petitioner alongwith his two witnesses approached the respondents about the purchase of the property from him. Learned counsel for Caveator placed reliance on the judgments reported in PLD 1969 Dacca 64, PLD 1987 Quetta 209 and PLD 1995 Quetta 29.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the plaint, statements of witnesses namely Wali Muhammad and Haji as well as impugned judgment carefully. Undoubtedly, the petitioner came to know about the sale of the property through P.Ws.
Wali Muhammad and Haji at the time when the respondent No,1 was ploughing the land with a tractor. So far as the statement made by P.W. Wali Muhammad is concerned, it indicates that Talb- e-Muwasibat was made by the petitioner but the evidence furnished by P.W. Haji is silent in this behalf. In addition to it, the statement of both the witnesses does not indicate that petitioner on coming to know that the property had been purchased by respondent Bashir Ahmed from Qaim Khan, he made Talb-e-Muwasibat and in order to complete the right of Shufa, he had approached the respondent for the purpose of purchase of the land. In such-like situation, it is now well- A settled by the time that reference to Talb-e-Muwasibat iS necessary while making Talb-e-Ishhad in order to confirm that the pre-emptor is really interested in the property and wanted to enforce his right by making both the Talbs i,e, Talb-e-Muwasilrat and Talb-e-Ishhad. It is equally important to note that ordinarily Talb-e-Muwasibat is not made before the vendee because no sooner pre- emptor acquires knowledge that the property on which he has B a right of pre-emption has been sold by the vendor, he without wastage of time in presence of the witnesses is bound to make Talb-e-Muwasibat which is also known jumping talb, therefore, when he will perform the second demand i,e, Talb-e-Ishhad he should attribute such words which would be sufficient to gather his intention that earlier to it he has already made Talb-e-Muwasibat. In this behalf, reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Lokman Mondal v. Amir Ali Mondal and others PLD 1969 Dacca 64. . Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "In the present case the plaintiffs have neither claimed nor adduced evidence to the effect that at the time of making the second demand a reference was made to the first demand. That being so, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim pre-emption and the learned Courts below erred in law in not directing their attention to this question." Above principle has been affirmed in the cases of (i) Samundar v. Lal Muhammad and 9 others PLD 1987 Quetta 209, (ii) Malik Nazar Muhammad v. Haji Abdul Rauf and another PLD '1992 Quetta 9 and (iii) Muhammad Hassan and 2 others v. Shafi-ud-Din and 2 others PLD 1995 Quetta 29.
6. In view of ahovesaid principle of law, we are inclined to hold that the learned trial Court has rightly non-suited the petitioner because he did not make reference to Talb-e-Muwasibat while performing Talb-e-Ishhad for the purpose of enforcing his right of pre-emption. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of leave. As such, petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.