2013 PLP 135 (MLD)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision the petitioners-defendants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 5-1-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2000 whereby suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit to pre-empt the sale in favour of the defendants-petitioners through Mutation No.296 sanctioned on 30-6-1994. The suit was filed on 26-10-1994. The written statement was filed. After framing of issues the learned trial court invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well documentary evidence. Vide the judgment and decree dated 27-9-2000 the learned trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was filed which was dismissed on 5-1-2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, hence this civil revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants relying upon Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabir (2009 SCMR 630) contends that plaintiff-respondent has not pleaded in the plaint the place and time of knowledge of impugned sale and also the making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and further states that even in the alleged notice of Talb-e-Ishhad the place and time of knowledge of impugned sale as well as making of Talb-e-Muwathibat have not been mentioned.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that matter relates to the year 1994 and evidence was also recorded at that time, therefore at that time the law declared by the august Supreme Court was not in the field.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record with their able assistance.

6. No doubt for filing a suit to pre-empt the sale, the pre-requisite is that the plaintiff must plead in his plaint and mention in his notice the date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale and then also the jumping demand in presence of witnesses in accordance with section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 the time, date and place are not mentioned, the plaintiff cannot prove the jumping demand. In this view of the matter the reason advance by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff's unable to rebut the contentions and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Both the courts below fell in error while recording findings on issue No.2 against the settled law by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, findings recorded by both the courts below are contrary to law. In the light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is allowed and the findings recorded by both the courts below on issue No.2 with regard to Tabls are set aside. Resultantly, the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside. The suit shall stand dismissed. KMZ/M-219/L Petition allowed.