The petitioner herein brought Suit No.377 of 2001 for possession of land measuring 7 Kanals fully described in the heading of the plaint through pre-emption against the respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mardan at Takht Bhai. The said suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants by tiling written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 19-9-2000. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the petitioner/plaintiff filed Appeal No.130/13 of 2000 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, who vide his judgment and decree, dated 9-1-2001 also dismissed the same. Being not content with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Muhammad Alam Khan, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has proved his case through convincing and cogent evidence but the Courts below failed to appreciate the same.
3. It was also argued that in para. 3 of the plaint that petitioner/plaintiff had stated that late defendant (predecessor of respondents) was served with a . Notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which was admitted by the respondent/defendant in the written statement, therefore, the said notice also stood proved, but the Courts below did not appreciate this fact properly.-
4. It was also argued that if there was any suit pending between Mst. Grana and Dost Muhammad, the same had no nexus with the present suit.
5. On the other hand Mr. Khalid Mahmood Khan, Advocate the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the petitioner/plaintif failed to prove Talbs in accordance with law.
Neither the date, place aLrtd time of Talb-e-Muwathibat was mentioned in the plaint nor in the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad. Moreover, the notice or Talb-e-Ishhad was undated and was not exhibited on record, therefore, the same cannot be taken notice of.
6. I have heard -the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The question that requires determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner/plaintiff had the Talbs in accordance with law, answer to this question is in negative. Perusal of the plaint shows-that the plaintiff/petitioner neither mentioned as to when he made Talb-e-Muwathibat () nor he stated a single word in his Court statement. Likwise in notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which is undated, the date of Talb-e-Muwathibat was not mentioned. Even the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not exhibited on record. It is by now settled law that it is not sine qua non to mention the date, place and time of the Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint but it is for the petitioner/plaintiff to prove as to when he gained the knowledge of the sale and as to whether he had made the jumping demand i.e. Talb-e-Muwathibat at the time of gaining of his knowledge. If the date of Talb-e- Muwathibat is neither mentioned in the plaint nor in the statement of the plaintiff, then the time for issuance of notice of Talab-e-Ishhad which is two weeks cannot be calculated.
8. In the case in hand the petitioner/plaintiff, as mentioned above, did not mention in the plaint as to when did he get the knowledge of the sale and when he made Talb-e-Muwathibat then he failed to mention the same in the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad which was not exhibited on record. When the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad was not exhibited, the same could not be taken into consideration.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Khurshid Akbar v. Saadullah Khan (2001 CLC 981) and Pakistan Insurance Corporation v. Asian Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999 M LD 3298).
9. Since the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove that he made Talbs in accordance with law, therefore, the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by them are proper.
I have not been able to find out any misreading/non-reading of evidence or any illegality or any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error or defect warranting interference in the impugned concurrent findings of the Courts of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the revision petition in hand is dismissed with no orders as toll costs.
Q.M.H./649/P