' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This revision petition admitted for the limited purpose set out in the admitting order dated 2-5-2001. For ease of reference the relevant part of the said order is reproduced as under:-- "Learned counsel has sought to contend that evidence on record has been misread by the learned Additional District Judge while reversing the findings of the learned trial Court on the question of 'Talbs'. Learned counsel has taken me through the evidence on the point and having so examined I find that the contention does not have any force. On the other hand I find that it is the trial Court who has misread the evidence on the question of requirement of 'Talbs'. The learned counsel then tried to argue that the market value of the suit-land had been wrongly fixed at Rs,30,000. Here again I find that the petitioner did not make any attempt to question the findings of the learned trial Court during the hearing of first appeal. Nothing, therefore, turns on the said contention.
Learned counsel further contends that before the judgment in Shabbir's case (PLD 1994 SC. 1) the respondent/plaintiff was required to prove 'Zarar and Zaroort' This contention of the learned counsel is, however, not entirely without force and prima facie is borne out from the record.
'
2. C.R. Is admitted to regular hearing only to consider the last point of the learned counsel."
2. In support of his contention noted above, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case titled Ch. Abdul Majeed v. Ch. Inayat Ali and 4 others (PLD 2001 Lahore 194). Learned counsel for the respondent, however, distinguished the aforecited precedent on the ground that the decree therein had been passed prior to the cut off date of 31-12-1993 fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Shabbir's case (PLD 1994 SC 1). It was argued on behalf of the respondent that in the present case the sale dated 21-7-1993 and the date of institution of the suit i.e, 5-9-1993 fell prior to the aforesaid cut off date but the decree was passed subsequently on 14-4-1998 when the provisions of section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act were no longer in force.##TE#
3. In response learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid distinction did not alter the legal requirement that the respondent/plaintiff could only have succeeded by proving the right of pre-emption as it existed on the three dates i.e, 21-7-1993, 5-9-1993 and 14-4-1998 referred to above. As the respondent/plaintiff had not led any evidence on the question of zarar and zaroorat, the respondent/plaintiff has not established his right' as on the date of sale i.e,21-7-1993 and the date of institution of the suit i.e, 5-9-1993 when proof of zaroorat and avoidance of zarar was essential.##TE# Learned counsel for the petitioner supported his argument by referring to the case titled Muhammad Abbas and 7 others v. Liaquat Ali and 9 others (2003 MLD 405). I have gone through the cited precedent and find the same to be all fours with the present case. Being in respectful agreement with the cited case I find that the learned appellate Court fell in error by decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent did refer to the case titled Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) to contend that the respondent was entitled to a pre-emption decree if the suit had not been decided by the cut off date i.e, 31-12-1993. I am afraid the precedent cited by learned counsel for the respondent does not support this legal proposition.
5. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed and the appellate decree dated 17-4-2001 is set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 14-4-1998 stands restored.##TE#