' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---Through this second appeal, judgment and decree, dated 16-2-1988 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, dismissing appellant's suit for possession through pre-emption and judgment and decree, dated 16-10-1995 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kharian have been challenged by the appellant.
2. Suit-land measuring 13 kanals 8 marlas was sold through incorporation of sale mutation, dated 6-1-1973 by Nazar Hussain. Asif Hussain Shah minor son of the vendor filed a suit for possession through Pre-emption through his mother Mst. Zohra Khatoon. The suit was admittedly filed at District Headquarter Gujrat although the subject-matter fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Kharian. The date of filing of the suit at Gujrat is stated by the appellant to be 7-1-1974, as the last day of limitation i.e, 6-1-1974 was a public holiday on account of Eid and the Court opened on 7-1-1974.
3. During the pendency of the suit vendee Abdur Rehman died andhis legal representative i.e, Inayat Begum etc. Were impleaded as the defendants in the suit who are respondents in the present appeal. These respondents filed their written statement claiming non-pre-emptibility of the transaction being Mangla Dam affectees, bar of limitation, non-deposit of Zar-e-Panjum etc. And contested pleas of the appellant on merits. Following issues were framed by the learned.
Senior Civil Judge:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee/defendant?
(2) Whether the sale of price Rs,5200 was actually paid or the same was fixed in good faith? OPD
(3) If issue No,2 is replied in negative then market value? OPP Parties.
(4) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
(5) Whether the suit was duly instituted within limitation, if not its effect?
(6) Whether Zare Panjum was paid within specified period,,if so, its effect? OPP
(7) Whether the defendant was effected from Mangla Dam, if so, its effect? OPD
(8) Whether the suit is Benami? OPD
(9) Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(10) Relief.
4. The parties presented their evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge held the suit to have been filed on 8-1-1974 and thus barred by time. He also adjudged the respondents to be the Mangla Dam affectees to be exempted from claims of pre-emption qua their transaction of sale. Zar-e- Panjum was also held not to have been deposited as per the applicable provisions of law. The suit was thus dismissed. The appeal filed against the above said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge through judgment and decree, dated 16-10-1995. Hence the present regular second appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Courts below have relied upon inadmissible and unreliable documents to non-suit the appellant on the questions of limitation and non-deposit of Zar-e-Panjum. He further contended that the respondents failed to provethemselves to be the Mangla Dam affectees as the certificate which was initially exhibited as Exh.D-2 was de-exhibited through order, dated 24-5-1986 and was returned to them by the learned Senior Civil Judge wherefor such document could not have been referred to and relied upon by the learned Courts below.
6. Contrarily the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees. He submitted that in judgment, dated 24-10-2000 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A. No, 2115-L of 1998 filed by Nazar Hussain Shah (the vendor of the suit-land and father of the appellant) against the present respondents identical issues raised in the similar suit for possession through pre-emption were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by upholding judgment, dated 7-10-1998 of this Court passed in R.S.A. No, 70 of 1998. He particularly referred to the last para of the judgment to state that the respondents of the present appeal were held in the said appeal to be the Mangla Dam affectees wherefor the matter stood finally settled and adjudicated upon qua the non-pre-emptibility of the transaction of sale made by the present respondents.
7. I have attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. The learned Courts below upon due and proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence arrived at concurrent findings of fact that the respondents were Mangla Dam affectees and enjoyed the privilege of non-pre-emptibility of their transaction. Examination of the judgments of the learned Courts below show that after de-exhibitting Exh.D-2 (the certificate issued by the Commissioner), the learned Courts below entered into a thread bear analysis of oral as well as documentary evidence on the record and on that basis determined the status of the respondents and their predecessor in interest Abdur Rehman as Mangla Dam affectees because the property purchased by Abdur Rehman in Mandir village was acquired for Mangla Dam. The appellant and his learned counsel have not been able to show any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Courts below.
8. Be that as it may, in a similar suit for ,possession throughpre-emption filed by Nazar Hussain as pre-emptor (although the vendor in the present case) against the respondents in the present appeal, involving identical questions and issues was decided by all the Courts including this Court against Nazar Hussain Shah whose R.S.A. No,70 of 1998 was dismissed by this Court through judgment, dated 7-10-1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment, dated 24- 10-2000 dismissed C.P.L.A. No,2115-L of 1998 against the abovejudgment. Para-5 of the judgment being a final pronouncement on the status of the respondents is reproduced hereunder:-- "The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the suit was barred by time having been filed on 11-12-1973 and the petitioner failed to deposit Zar-e-Panjum in time which has not been shown to have suffered from any misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, as such, does not call for any interference. The finding of fact that respondents were Mangla Dam affectees was also based on correct appraisal of evidence, therefore, the same also does not call for any interference as the same also does not suffer from any illegality."
9. Through the above reproduced observations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan settled and decided through the definitive findings that "respondents were Mangla Dam affectees...In viewthereof, the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents was not maintainable and the learned Courts below validly recorded their concurrent conclusion qua non-pre-emptibility of sale transaction, dated 6-1-1973 made in favour of Abdur Rehman by the vendor Nazar Hussain Shah.
10. Under these circumstances, no decision on other questions is required. This R.S.A. Is thus dismissed with costs along with all C.Ms therein.