' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Vide registered sale deed dated 10-8-1989 the respondent purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs,24,000. On 14-1-1990 the petitioners filed a suit for possession of the suit land by pre-emption. He claimed to be a co-sharer as also a Shafi Jar and Khalit. The performance of `talbs' was pleaded. The respondent resisted the suit with the plea that he is also a co-sharer in the suit land. The learned trial Court found the petitioner to be a co-sharer in all the khewats while the respondent was also found to be a co-sharer in all the khewats except No,26. It was also found that performance of talbs has been proved. He accordingly partially decreed the suit to the extent of 2 Kanals 13-1/2 Marlas on deposit of Rs,19,365,70. This was done vide judgment dated 3-4-1991. Against this judgment and decree both the parties filed first appeals. These were heard by an ADJ, Chiniot. Although separate judgments were passed in both the appeals yet these are verbatim copies of each other. The learned Additional District Judge proceeded to hold that the suit cannot proceeded in view of Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 36) and further that the saving clause of the Preemption Ordinance, 1990 was declared as repugnant by the Federal Shariat Court.
The suit was accordingly dismissed by allowing the appeal of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Additional. District Judge has failed to read even the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court much less the record before passing the impugned judgment and decree. No one has turned up for the respondent who is represented by Mr. Nazar Abbas Syed, Advocate whose name stands duly listed in the cause list. He is accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record. I have already noted above the contents of the plaint an findings recorded by the learned trial Court. I am also in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional District Judge has not cared to read the pleadings, the evidence and the judgment of the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. Had he done so he would have found that the talbs were duly pleaded and right was available under the Injunctions of Islam. The Civil Revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot is set aside. The result would be that the first appeals filed by both the parties shall be deemed to be pending in the Court of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Aqil, Additional District Judge, Chiniot. The petitioners shall appear before the said learned Additional District Judge on 6-11-2007. Record will be requisitioned. The respondent will be summoned in both the appeals and these shall be decided by the learned Additional District Judge after examining the records and hearing the parties. A copy of this order be remitted to the learned Additional District Judge by the office.