On 27.7.1981 the petitioners filed a pre-emption suit against the respondents. It was stated that they have purchased the suit land, mentioned in the plaint, by means of a Civil Court decree dated 12.2.1981 for a consideration of Rs,7,60,000/- and on the basis of the said decree, Mutation No, 387 has been attested on 5.6.1981. Petitioners claimed to be co-owners in the suit property and also collaterals of the vendors. This suit was decreed ex parte on 27.9.1981. The respondents filed an application for setting aside of the exparte decree which was dismissed by the learned trial. Court on 17.12.1981. Against the original ex parte decree as well as the order dated 17.12.1981 an appeal was filed in this Court which was allowed on 27.6.1989 and the exparte decree was set aside. Civil Appeal No, 403/89 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 26.1.1991.
2. On 23.5.1991 an application for grant of temporary injunction was filed by the petitioners stating that after the dismissal of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree, the petitioners had filed an execution petition and in execution of warrant, the possession was delivered to them and the mutation was attested on 22.12.1981. According to them, without proceedings under Section 144 C.P.C., the respondents are interfering with their tenants. In their reply, the respondents took the plea that no notice was issued to them in any execution petition and that the said mutation has been cancelled after the orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.7.1991. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, on 8.6.2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the possession had been obtained by his clients in execution of the ex parte decree, it can be restituted only in proceedings under Section 144 C.P.C. No one has turned up for the respondents.
4. I have examined the copies of the records. Since there is nothing on the record to show that the possession of the land, admittedly, under cultivation of tenants, was obtained in execution of the said decree. I called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate that the possession was so obtained in execution of the decree. He has shown me a report Roznamcha from his brief. I have examined the same with his assistance and I find that, in fact, the revenue records were amended when a copy of the said ex parte decree was presented before the Revenue Officer.
5. Now it is also on record that the respondents have filed ejectment cases against tenants of the land which have been decreed by the Revenue Courts.
6. By now it is well settled that a pre-emption decree need not be executed and the Revenue Authorities are bound to correct their records in accordance with the said decree. To my mind, the same ought to be the rule in the matter of setting aside of such a decree as has happened in the present case. If the Revenue Authorities were competent to amend the records upon presentation of the copy of the decree, they were equally obliged to correct the records upon the presentation of the orders of this Court and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan of setting side the said decree. Admittedly, the land is being cultivated by the tenants and there is no question of delivery of any physical possession. The civil revision is frivolous and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.