' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners, seek leave to appeal from judgment dated 20- 6-2003, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.S.A. No,5 of 1999.
2. The petitioners, purchased the suit-land measuring 278 Kanals and 1 Marla for a consideration of rs,.5,04,000. The respondents instituted, on 18-4-1990, a suit for possession through pre-emption of the suit-land on the ground that they were Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar. They also disputed the correctness of amount of sale consideration. It was averred in the plaint that they had fulfilled the requisite Talbs as required by law. The Civil Judge, First Class, Jampur framed as many as 11 issues, recorded evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the respondents on Issues Nos.3 and 5, by judgment dated 31-7-1998. The respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Jampur, District Rajanpur, by judgment and decree, dated 28-1-1999, whereby the suit of the respondents was decreed in their favour for a sum of rs,.4,00,000 as the sale-price of the suit-land. Therefore, the petitioners, preferred R.S.A. No,5 of 1999 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, by the impugned judgment, dated 20-6-2003.
Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the petitioners, were precluded by the Additional District Judge from agitating against the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 to 11 for the reason that the petitioners, had not filed any cross-objections thereto. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners, were entitled to address arguments on all issues which had been decided by the trial Court even though they had not filed any cross-objections thereto. The submissions of the petitioners, could not be confined only to the findings on Issues Nos.3 and 5. The impugned judgment and decree dated 28-1-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge followed by the impugned judgment, dated 20-6-2003 of the High Court were not sustainable at law. The learned counsel relied on the case of Mst. Jamila Begum v. Awam-un-Nass and 15 others, PLD 1978 Lah. 1376 in support of his contentions.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, to be fair to him, candidly conceded that in the light of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22, C.P.C., both the parties were equally entitled to re-agitate against the findings of the trial Court on all issues.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the relevant record. We find that issues Nos.3 and 5 were regarding estoppel and Talbs. The findings of the trial Court on both issues were against the respondents/pre-emptors,. However, the findings of the trial Court on all other issues were in favour of the respondents. Issue No,4 was also of vital importance as to "whether the plaintiffs had got any superior right and pre-emptive right in respect of the suit- land as against the vendee-defendants? OPP". It is clear from the judgment dated 28-1-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jampur, that the petitioners, were precluded from addressing arguments as to the correctness of the finding of the trial Court on other issues including Issue No,4 merely on the ground that they had not filed any cross-objections or cross- appeal in the case. The course adopted by the Additional District Judge was violative of the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22, C.P.C. And the judgment by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Haque and others, v. Shaukat Ali and 2 others, 2003 SCMR 74, authored by one of us (Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.). It was held therein that a party in whose favour a decree was passed, was not necessarily required to file an appeal or cross-objection as it could defend the decree on all the available grounds in support of the decree in appeal as provided by Order XLI, rule 22, C.P.C., even though such grounds had been found against it. In Province of Punjab. Through Collector, Rajanpur District and 2 others, v. Muhammad Akram and 2 others, 1998 SCMR 2306 this Court had taken the view that where a respondent had neither preferred a petition nor filed an appeal, the Court had ample authority and full powers, to extend relief to him provided that it was necessary either to do complete justice between the parties or the case otherwise involved invocation of Court's inherent powers,. Beneficial provisions of Order XLI of rule 23, C.P.C. Could also be invoked to do complete justice or to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated and to adjust the rights of the parties in accordance with justice, equity and good consciences as laid down in the case of Salahud-Din Butt and others, v. Punjab Service Tribunal and others, PLD 1989 SC 597. In our opinion, the judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, are not sustainable at law.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal I and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 20-6-2003, passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in D R.S.A. No,4/5 of 1999 as well as the judgment and decree, dated 28-1-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jampur, are set aside. Consequently, the firs,t appeal of the respondents shall be deemed to be pending for disposal by the District Judge/Additional District Judge concerned on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months.