TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.--- Amanul Mulk petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against Muhammad.
Hayat Khan respondent/defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mardan seeking the possession by pre-emption of land mentioned in the heading of the plaint. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing written statement. The learned Trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, decreed the suit in favour of petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2002. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant filed appeal No. 104/13 of 2002 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Mardan which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2003, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. Being not contended with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Shahzad Gul, the learned counsel representing the petitioner/plaintiff, argued that the learned Appellate Court has non-suited the petitioner on the sole ground that he has not mentioned the date, time and place when he made Talb-e-Muwathibat in his plaint and the mentioning of those facts in the plaint were not necessary. Reliance in this regard was placed on 2002 CLC 336.
3. It was also argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has proved his case through convincing and reliable evidence which was appreciated by the learned Trial Court but the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same.
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am afraid, cannot help the petitioner because the perusal of record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff not only failed to mention the date; time and place when he made Ta/b-e-Muwathibat in his plaint but he also failed to mention the same facts in his statement when he was examined as PW.4. The mentioning of date, time and place when Ta/b-e-Muwathibat was made, was must to be mentioned in the plaint as held in the case reported as Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (2003 PSCC 596), therefore, the learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the said legal position.
5. I have not been able to find out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any material illegality or any jurisdiction error or defect warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand in dismissed in limine. .