' Allah Ditta, the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, in an action for possession through pre- emption, brought by him against the petitioner, has succeeded at the two forums below. He claims of learning about the sale in question on 11-7-1994 at his house in the presence of Haji Muhammad Younis son of Lal Din and Habib son of Nizam Din, while the informer is Muhammad Sadiq son of Haji Muhammad Amir, where he made Talb-i-Muwathibat and thereafter, served upon the petitioner the notice of Talb-iIshhad. The two Courts below have found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff including the controversy of Talbs.
2. Though, there is a concurrent finding of facts, but the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, it is settled law that no one can be allowed to plead beyond the scope of his pleadings and if, any evidence led in that regard, that shall be ignored by the Court. Elaborating his submissions, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent/plaintiff in his plaint, in clear and unequivocal terms has stated of having learnt about the sale on 11-7-1994 at his house, whereas in the examination-in-chief, he while appearing as P.W.2 has stated that, Muhammad Sadiq had told him about the sale in the Baithak of Manzoor; Manzoor has not been examined in the matter; likewise the other witness Muhammad Younis has also stated the venue of the disclosure of sale being the house of Manzoor; above all, Muhammad Sadiq, the informer, has also deposed to the same effect. It is, therefore submitted that on account of this blatant contradiction in the plaint and the statements of witnesses of the plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff in fact has failed to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat; both the Courts below have grossly ignored this vital aspect of the matter and thus, the findings, though concurrent, have no sanctity in the eye of law.
3. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Manzoor is the son-in-law of the plaintiff and they have a common Baithak, therefore, there does not exist any contradiction to defeat the right of preemption of the plaintiff, which stands duly proved on the record, and there is no breach of the rule qua the leading of evidence beyond the scope of pleadings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that the fact deposed in the pleadings, can only be proved through evidence. No person can be allowed to lead evidence beyond the scope of his pleadings and even if, such evidence is led, but being against the scope of pleadings, is to be ignored by the Court. Resultantly, while ignoring this part of statements of all the witnesses, there is no proof about the venue, where the respondent/plaintiff learnt about the sale and made Talb-i- Muwathibat. Thus, if this foundation of venue goes away, the entire case of the plaintiff qua the first Talb, falls down to the ground. I have perused the judgments of the two Courts below. They have not at all adverted to this aspect of the matter, which is sheer non-reading of the evidence and, therefore, even the concurrent finding of fact, has no sanctity in the eye of law. Resultantly, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside with the result that suit of the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. This petition is accordingly allowed.