' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the judgment dated 31st October, 2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. As common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, we intend to dispose them of by means of instant order.
2. Facts of both the petitions are as follows:-
3. Civil Petition No,491-L of 2001 ' Precisely stating the facts of the case are that Muhammad Shafi respondent purchased land measuring 190 Kanals from Rao Muhammad Ali vide registered sale-deed dated 25h September, 1978 for a consideration of Rs,25,000. Petitioner Ghulam Rasool filed a suit for possession through pre-emption claiming his superior right being owner in estate. The suit was contested by respondent Muhammad Shafi by filing written statement wherein superior right of the plaintiff/petitioner was denied. Learned trial Court framed issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties including the one "who amongst the rival preemptors have not the superior right of pre- emption as against vendee/defendant and inter se? O.P. Pre-emptor." Learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective pleas, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 8th September, 1982, while holding that parties have equal right of preemption. The appeal filed by petitioner-plaintiff was heard by District Judge, Layyah, who vide judgment dated 26th February, 1983, remanded the case to the trial Court for recording fresh findings on above issue after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence.
Findings of lower Court on other issues were, however, maintained. After remand of the case, learned trial Court recorded the statements of parties and Exh.P.4 and Exh.P.5 and ultimately again came to the conclusion that respondent Muhammad Shafi is owner of the estate, as such dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27th July, 1983. The appeal filed by Ghulam Rasool- petitioner was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Layyah vide judgment, dated 7th January, 1984 and the suit was decreed. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment, as a result whereof judgment of Additional District Judge, Layyah dated 7th January, 1984 was set aside and judgment of trial Court, dated 27th July, 1983 was restored and the suit filed by petitioner was dismissed with no order as to costs. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
4. Civil Petition No,492-L of 2001 ' Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for-pre-emption regarding agricultural land measuring 218 Kanals, 13 Marlas, on the basis of his superior right of pre-emption against the respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Layyah on 9th September, 1978. The suit was contested by the respondent by way of filing written statement. Learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues, arising out of the pleadings, including the one "whether the plaintiff has got superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee-defendant? OPP". Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned Civil Judge after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit vide judgment dated 7th June, 1984. Respondent Allah Bakhsh, being aggrieved, preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was allowed vide judgment dated 11th December, 1984 with the result that the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. Petitioner/plaintiff feeling dissatisfied from the judgment of the Appellate Court, approached the learned High Court by filing R.S.A. No,42 of 1985, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent was not owner in the estate within the contemplation of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 because he claims preferential right of pre-emption on a piece of land which he obtained vide a Hiba Deed (Exh.D.5) from one Allah Wasaya for residential purposes. This fact is admitted by him in his statement in Court during proceedings which has given rise to those proceedings and even prior to it, during the proceedings, which arose out of the suit filed by the petitioner to preempt the sale vide Hiba Nama (Exh.D.5), in earlier round of litigation, while recording his statement (Exh.D.5/1). Although said suit was dismissed on the ground that transaction between respondent and Allah Wasaya is not of a sale but in view of his that statement that he has obtained one Kanal of land for residential purposes, the suit filed by the petitioner was liable to be accepted as respondent was not the sharer in the estate. To elaborate his arguments, reliance was placed by him upon the judgments in the cases of Shah Muhammad v. M.T. Piari AIR 1936 Lah. 202 and Salehon Muhammad v. Shera and others 1977 SCM R 297.
6. He further contended that although the statement of respondent Muhammad Shafi was brought on record as Exh.P.5 but the learned High Court declined to accept the same by assigning the reason that when he was in witness-box, he was not confronted with the same as such previous statement given by him cannot be used as an evidence against him. According to learned counsel, petitioner/plaintiff intended to bring on record the previous statement of Muhammad Shafi as corroborative evidence in order to establish that previously he was found to be non-owner of the agricultural land; therefore, he cannot be allowed B to purchase the land, subject-matter of the present proceedings. He further contended that in view of the provisions of Article 153 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, which corresponds to section 157 of the Evidence Act, petitioner was not required to confront to respondent with his earlier statement. He also pointed out that above all respondent Muhammad Shafi in the cross-examination on the statement which he got recorded in present proceedings as D.W.1, has admitted in previous round of litigation, he had obtained one Kanal of land from Allah Wasaya for residential purposes, therefore, learned High Court has wrongly non-suited the petitioner.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for caveat contended that in previous round of litigation between petitioner and respondent, wherein former has pre-empted against one Kanal of land obtained in Hiba by Muhammad Shafi respondent, through a gift, he could not succeed as the suit filed by him was dismissed. He further contended that according to available record, the status of the land obtained by Muhammad Shafi from Allah Wasaya is agriculture land even today, therefore, for such reason, he is owner of agricultural land in the estate and as the petitioner could not prove his earlier statement (Exh.D.5) according to law, therefore, the High Court had rightly granted relief to respondent by accepting civil revision.
' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as available record carefully. Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine respective contentions of the parties counsel, noted hereinabove.