2006 PLP 2480 (YLR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The respondent brought a suit for pre-emption against the petitioners, which was decreed by the learned trial Court, on 16-10-1996, to the extent of the half share of the suit property, and dismissed for the remaining half. The appeal of the petitioner has failed on 30-9-2000.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are, that on 2-9-1992 the respondent brought a suit for pre-emption, stating in the plaint that he a week before the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad, which was issued on 15-8-1992, learnt about the sale from Rehmat Ali, Ghulam Hussain and Sardar Muhammad, of the suit-land measuring 111 Kanals, 10 Marlas, effected in favour of the petitioners, through sale Mutation No.182, dated 22-6-1992, and made Talb-i-Muwathibat followed by a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad on the above noted date. The petitioners challenged the making of the Talbs, and resultantly, Issue No.2 was framed in this behalf; the parties were put to trial; the petitioners examined P.W.2/Ghulam Hussain, whose statement was recorded on 1-3-1993, this witness in his examination-in-chief deposed, that 6 1/2 months before, when the plaintiff was sitting in his (the witness's) Baithak along with the others, he apprised the plaintif that the Patwari has told him about the sale of property; on hearing this the plaintiff asserted Talb-i-Muwahibat; he also in the witness of Talb-i-Ishhad, Rehmat Ali, has appeared as P.W.3, and more or less has made the statement on the same lines as that of P.W.2, however, he has not stated to have told the plaintiff about the sale as is mentioned in the plaint. The result of the suit at both the forums below is mentioned in para No.1, of the judgment. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Haji Muhammad Saleem v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 2003 SC 315) and FazaI Subhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sahib Jamala and others (PLD 2005 SC 977), argued that the particulars of the Talb such as the date, time and place are conspicuously missing in the plaint, therefore, the first Talb has not been proved in accordance with law, and resultantly, the suit on this account was liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard. According to the judgments mentioned in paragraph 3 above, it is clear A that the plaintiff has to specify the date, on which he learnt about the sale and made Talb-i-Muwathibat; besides, this has to be proved through the evidence as well. The plaint has been perused, in which no specific date has been given, and it is only stated that the petitioner learnt about the sale a week before the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. Besides, the witnesses of the petitioner also have vaguely stated the period as 6 1/2 months of their depositions, which were recorded on 1-3-1993; thus calculating the period of 6 1/2 months it comes to the date of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad and not the alleged making of Talb-i-Muwathibat, which according to the contents of the plaint, is a week prior thereto.

5. In the light of above, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to make the Talb and this has been wrongly determined by the learned Courts below, which judgments cannot sustain and are hereby set aside, with the result that the suit of the respondent is dismissed. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. F.B./N-45/L Petition allowed.