' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 8-11-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1996 dismissing their suit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 40 Kanals situate in Chak Mamoori, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din was sold by one Jalal in favour of Abdul Aziz respondent/vendee vide registered sale-deed dated 24-10-1983. Sadiq (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 4 filed suit for pre-emption on 22-10-1984 on the ground of collateral tie. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 23-10-1984 directed the pre-emptor/plaintiff to deposit Zare-Panjam upto 24-11-1984. However, on 24-11-1984 the plaint was rejected due to mon-deposit of Zar-e-Panjam. The pre-emptor on 25-11-1984 just on the very next day submitted an application for the suit. The learned trial Court reviewed the jurisdiction under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. And issued notice to the respondent/vendee in the said application but he did not turn up despite issuance of notice whereafter substituted service was effected by way of citation in the newspapers and on 27-10-1985 the vendee was proceeded ex parte and ex parte evidence was summoned. On 4-6-1986 the learned trial Court passed two separate orders. The first order was passed reviewing the earlier order of rejecting the plaint and the suit was restored whereas the second order passed on the same day i,e, 4-2-1986, the learned trial Court recorded ex parte evidence and on the basis thereof decreed the suit and directed the pre-emptor to deposit an amount of Rs,23,250. The pre-emption money was determined as Rs,20,000 and registration charges and District Council fee was added and the total decretal amount was fixed as Rs,23,250 which was directed to be deposited by 30-6-1986. The petitioners/pre-emptors deposited the said decretal amount which included Zar-e-Panjam as well. The question of non-deposit of Zar-e- Panjam, therefore, became redundant.
3. The respondent/vendee on 9-10-1986 filed an application with the prayer for setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 10-3-1987. The vendee went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 6-2-1989 remanded the case.
4. In post-remand proceedings the learned trial Court set aside the ex parte decree, dated 4-4- 1986 and restored the suit vide order, dated 4-4-1990. It is pertinent to mention here that only ex parte decree was set aside but the suit stood restored by virtue of the order, dated 4-6-1986. Yet on another application of the vendee dated 11-4-1990, the learned trial Court rejected the plaint vide order, dated 25-9-1990 on the ground that since the suit was never decreed before 31st July, 1986, it cannot proceed. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge against the rejection of his plaint which, however, was dismissed on 22-10- 1991. Thereafter he filed Civil Revision No,1882-D of 1991, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment, dated 13-4-1992. The vendee never raised any objection about the order of review passed by the learned trial Judge on 4-6-1986 whereby the suit stood restored in Civil Revision No,1882-D of 1991. This Court in para.4 of the order dated 13-4-1992 passed in Civil Revision No,1882- D of 1991 held as under:-- "The argument has force. The ex parte decree having been passed in favour of the petitioner before 4-6-1986, therefore the suit of the petitioner could proceed and the learned trial Judge was vested with jurisdiction to try the same on merits and pass decree on merits if the petitioner was found to have established his rights."
' Again in para.5 of the same remand order, this Court also observed as under:-- "The trial Court shall decide the suit on merits in accordance with law."
' The aforesaid order of remand passed by this Court dated 13-4-1992 in Civil Revision No,1882-D of 1991 became final between the parties as the vendee never challenged the same before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. In post-remand proceedings, on the basis of Issues Nos.1 and 5, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 28-2-1996 and the learned Additional District Judge also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 8-11-2001. Hence this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the findings of the learned Appellate Court as well as the trial Court on Issues Nos.1 and 5 are against laws and facts of the case. He submitted that as regards Issue No,5, the learned trial Court passed two separate orders and on 4- 6-1986 the first order was passed reviewing the earlier order rejecting the plaint and vide second order, ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the first order regarding the revival of the suit was not challenged/ agitated by the respondents, only the ex parte judgment and decree passed on 4-6-1986 was challenged in the light of the judgment, dated 13-4-1992 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No,1882-D of 1991, the suit could only be decided on merits and the issue of revival of the suit could not be taken into consideration by the trial Court as that issue has become redundant because the judgment, dated 13-4-19992 in Civil Revision No,1882-D of 1991 had attained finality as it was not challenged further. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the suit of the petitioners could not be dismissed for non-depositing of Zare Panjam because the entire decretal amount in compliance with the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 4-6-1986 was deposited. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Ameen v. Sardar Ali PLD 2006 SC 318, Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others 2007 SCM R 1131, Mst.
Bashir Begum v. Muhammad Shamas Duha Ali Khan and another 1976 SCM R 344 and Muhammad Tahir v. Abdul Latif and 5 others 1990 SCM R 751.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners attacking the findings of the courts below on Issue No,1 argued that relationship between the parties is clearly mentioned in the statement of P.W.1 Shamsher Ali which has not been challenged by the respondents in cross-examination and in the light of this fact production of pedgree-table by the petitioners was not necessary to prove their relationships and keeping in view the evidence on record which has been omitted from consideration by both the courts below, judgments and decrees passed in this behalf are liable to be set aside and the suit of the petitioners be decreed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments of the courts below on the ground that the same are well-reasoned judgments and the entire evidence produced by the parties has been thrashed minutely and as there is no illegality available in the impugned judgments and decrees, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the evidence on the record documentary as well as oral. Only Issues Nos.1 and 5 were pressed before the Appellate Court. So far as findings on Issue No,1 are concerned I have gone through the pleadings and evidence of the parties and found that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are without force because relationship has been challenged by the parties and in cross-examination suggestions have also been put to the P. Ws. Keeping In view this aspect, it was the duty of the petitioners to produce best legal evidence, which he failed. In this view of the matter I do not feel that there is any misreading or non-A reading of the evidence on the record and both the courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while deciding Issue No,1 in favour of the respondents. So far as the question of deposit of Zar-ePanjam and revival of the suit is concerned that was not challenged by the respondents upto this Court during the previous round of litigation and I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that this question was abandoned and according to the law laid down by the superior Courts referred above could not be re-agitated.
Hence the findings on Issue No,5 in the impugned judgment are not sustainable under the law.
10. As discussed above concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below on issue No,1, petitioners have failed to produce their best legal evidence in support of their plea, the suit was rightly dismissed.
11. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.