FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOHKAR, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the impugned judgment dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2000.
2. Late Gulam Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, being a tenant, purchased suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 8.2.1977, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. The petitioner instituted a suit against him for possession of the suit land by pre-emption claiming his. Superior right being a collateral of the vendor and co-sharer. The Civil Judge, Kharian, by judgment and decree dated 23.5.1982, decreed the suit of the petitioner. Late Ghulam Din preferred an appeal thereagainst which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat Camp, at Kharian by judgment and decree dated 1.7.2000. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1982 passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the civil suit of the petitioner was dismissed.
Therefore, he filed Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2000 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 11.8.2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the case of Government of NWFP through Secretary, Law vs. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), the provision of paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R. No. 115) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) creating the first right of pre-emption in favour of tenants was declared to be repugnant to the injunctions of Holy Quran, and Sunnah with effect from 31.7.1986. Therefore, the superior right of preemption of the petitioner qua late Ghulam Din could not be disregarded.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, C.P. No. 1045 of 1985 of the petitioners was dismissed by this Court on 6.6.1986, and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was found to be a tenant of the suit land at the the of its sale to him.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record with their assistance. We find that late Ghulam Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was proved to be tenant of the suit land at the the of its purchase by him.
Therefore, he had the first right of pre-emption qua the petitioner in terms of paragraph 25(3)(d) of the said Regulations, which could not be defeated on the ground that the afore-said provision of law had been declared to be un- islamic. Since the Trial Court had already passed a decree before 31.7.1986, therefore, the rights of the parties would remain un-affected in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Lai Din vs. Bashir Ahmad (1991 SCM R 228), Said Kamal (supra) and Sardar Ali and others vs. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287). in the cases of Muhammad Khan and others vs. Muzaffar (PLD 1983 181) and Piara Khan vs. Bashir Ahmad (1991 SCM R 2107), this Court has already taken the view that the first right of pre-emption would be available to a tenant to defend a suit for preemption instituted against him. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court so as to call for interference.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.