PLD 2000 Peshawar 20 (PLP)

3. Mr. Muhammad Younas Khan Tanoli, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the learned District Judge. Haripur non‑suited the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that his plaint did not contain the particulars regarding date, time and place of 'Talb‑i -Muwathibat'. It is not necessary to mention the details in the plaint, hence the impugned order/judgment/decree of learned District Judge, Haripur is against law and dictum laid down by superior Courts.

4. Mr. Muhammad Isthail Tanoli, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand, supported the judgment/decree passed by the learned District Judge. Haripur.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff has been non‑suited by the learned District Judge, Haripur on the sole ground that he has not mentioned the time, place, date and names of the witnesses in whose presence 'Talb‑i‑Muwathibat' was made. In view of the recent judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan A and this Court, it is not sine qua non for the pre‑emptor to specify in the plaint the time, place, date and the names of the witnesses in whose presence 'Talb‑i‑Muwathibat' under section 13 of the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987, was made by the pre‑emptor.

7. The question as to whether it is sine qua non for the pre‑emptor to specify in the plaint the names of the witnesses in whose presence 'Talb‑i‑Muwathibat' under section 13 of the North‑West Frontier Province Pre emption Act (X of 1987) was made by the pre‑emptor and the place, date and time of making the 'Talabs', came up before august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No.44 of 1997 (Sar Anjam v. Abdur Raziq), Civil Appeal No.573 of 1997 (Shakirullah v. Aminullah) and Civil Appeal No.574 of 1997 (Muhammad Ishaq Khan v. Amir Nawaz Khan). Their Lordships after' discussing various judgments held in paragraph No. 10 of their judgment: "The above survey of case‑law would, thus, lead us to the conclusion that the pleadings of the parties should contain only material facts and are, therefore, not required to contain the gist of evidence and names of witnesses." Similarly, in paragraph No. 12 it was held: "We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that it is not a sine qua non for a pre‑emptor to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses in whose presence he had made 'Talb‑i‑Muwathibat' and also specify the time and place of making the, 'Talabs' under section 13 of the Act '

8. Similarly in case Amir Jan and 3 others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1997 SC 883 it was held: "No. doubt Order 6, Rule 2, C.P.C. provides that material facts are to be stated in pleadings but it does not mean that evidence through which such material fact is to be proved shall also be stated in pleadings. In our view it would be sufficient requirement of law if it is alleged in the pleadings that after having come to know of sale the pre‑emptor declared his intention to pre‑empt the sale. This material fact has to be proved at the trial through ,evidence on the issue framed in this regard." Likewise a Single Bench of this Court in C.R. No.22 of 1995 (Bashir Ahmed and others v. Murtaza Khan) has also held that it is not necessary for the pre emptor to mention the time, date, place and the names of the witnesses in the plaint.

9. Keeping in view the recent judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court, the order of the learned District Judge, Haripur is not sustainable. The petition in hand is accepted and the impugned order dated 16‑11‑1996 is set aside and the cage is remanded to the trial Coin for decision on merits strictly in accordance with law. Q.M.H./506/P Case remanded.