1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The instant revision petition assails, the judgment/decree, dated 13-8-2004, passed by the learned District Judge Skardu, whereby the learned Judge has set aside the orders: dated 27-10-1996, 20-11-1991 and 12-10-1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Skardu, accepting the Revision Petition No,11 of 1996 and granting the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as such that, in the year 1989, the defendant No,1 sold the disputed land, under Khata No,349 measuring 14 Kanals, 17 Marlas to the defendant No,2 for consideration of Rs,8,000 through sale-deed No,51. The present petitioner being real uncle of defendant No,1 filed the Suit No,412 of 1990 to pre-empt the sale transaction between the defendants 1 and 2. On 20-11-1991, the pre-emption suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants and the defendants filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree against them, the ex parte decree was set aside subject to payment of Rs,500, but the defendant failed to pay the cost and also remained absent, so the order, dated 12-10-1994 was passed and the ex parte decree was maintained.
3. ' Later on, the defendants Nos.2 and 3 filed petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the ex parte decree before the trial Court. The learned trial Court proceeded the same and framed as many as 8 issues, but finally dismissed the petition as not maintainable vide order, dated 27-10-1996. The defendants 1 and 2 went to the Court of learned District Judge in revision and the learned District Judge accepted the revision petition and set aside the ex parte decree along with other respective orders, by accepting the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Hence, this revision before this Court.
4. ' The learned counsel at very out set of the arguments raised a preliminary objection, that no second revision petition is allowed under C.P.C. As such the instant revision being revision upon revision is not maintainable, I am in consonance with the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the preliminary objection that no second revision petition is maintainable under law, however at the same time, I am of the opinion that, the present petitioners have no any remedy and I, feel that some important legal points are required to be determined, hence, the petition is converted into writ and heard the counsel for the parties.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on merits the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, discloses that the learned District Judge has set aside order, dated 12-10-1994 which was passed by himself as Civil Judge. Secondly in operative part of the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has not only set aside the judgment/order dated 27-10-1996 passed by the trial Court in Petition No,33 of 1995 and ex parte decree, dated 20-11-1991 and order dated 12-10-1994 but also has dismissed the preemption Suits bearing. Nos.112 of 1990, 143 of 1990 and file has been consigned to record after completion by the learned District Judge. He further stated that the above legal errors are unwarranted in law and not tenable. When the above points are confronted to the learned counsel for respondent, he frankly admitted that the learned District Judge has erred in taw by setting aside his own order, dated 12-10-1994 and also has ironically, dismissed the pre-emption suit too. The only course for the learned District Judge was to remit the pre-emption suit to the trial Court for hearing the same on merits, after setting aside the ex parte decree as well as other relative orders by accepting the revision petition.
6. ' The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the impugned judgment/order, dated 27-10-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge is also contrary to law and facts and getting no support from the record. From the plain reading of the judgment passed by- learned trial Judge, it seems that he was confused in discussing the issues, so, the learned District Judge has rightly accepted the revision petition filed by the present respondent and colateral orders respectively except the order, dated 12-10-1994 which has been passed by himself as Civil Judge.
7. ' I have gone through the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the relevant record of the case, and of the opinion that, the learned District Judge has erred in law by dismissing the pre-emption suit, the only course for District Judge was to set aside ex parte decree when he reached to the conclusion to accept the revision petition filed by the present respondents. Likewise, I am further of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge has also taken the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Lightly and the judgment passed by him is not getting any support from the record of the case; and the judgment is confused one.
8. ' The upshot of the above discussions, is that the case is remitted back to the trial Court by setting aside the judgment dated 13-8-2004 passed by the District Judge to the extent of dismissal of the pre-emption suit and also judgment, dated 27-10-1996 passed by the trial Judge but the most complicated and crucial point in the present matter is that the Suits Nos.167 of 1990, 56 of 1993, 93 of 2004 for declaration of title in respect of disputed land is also sub judice and this Court has remanded the same too, to the Civil Court for disposal on merits today and if the trial Court comes to the conclusion in said suit that plaintiff Kacho Muhammad Shah is the real owner of the disputed land, then the sale-deed between the defendants Nos.1 and 2 becomes void and resultantly, pre- emption suit becomes infructuous, but pre-emption suit is previous in its institution, as such, it could not be stayed under section 10, C.P.C., hence in, exercise of my inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. I, hereby direct the trial Court to keep the trial of this pre-emption suit sine die till final disposal of the Suit No,167 of 1990. File. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.