' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 21-6-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal who allowed both the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for preemption and challenged the Mutation of sale No, 1993 dated 5-9-2000 on the ground that the plaintiff-petitioner has a superior right of pre-emption against the vendees. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Mutation No, 1993, the vendor sold the land measuring 112 Kanal 15 Marla while the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption of 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents who submitted written statements and raised a number of preliminary objections including that the plaintiff has failed to perform talbs as required under the law and also that vide Mutation No,1993, the vendor sold the land measuring 112 Kanals 15 Marlas while the pre-emptor filed a suit to pre-empt 7 Kanals, 18 Marlas land, therefore, the suit for partial pre-emption is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was directed to pay the balance amount. Both the parties filed appeals which were allowed on 21-6-2005 by learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned appellate Court has failed to correctly interpret section 31 of Pre-emption Act which entitles the pre-emptor to file a suit for partial pre-emption to the extent of the land which is contiguous to the pre-emptor. He further contends that the plaintiff has fulfilled all the talbs as required under the law, so the impugned judgment is erroneous and a nullity in the eye of law which is not maintainable, therefore, the civil revision be allowed, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court be restored.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has supported the impugned judgment and decree.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The contents of Mutation No, 1993 dated 5-9-2000 reveal that the respondents-defendants purchased land measuring 112 Kanals 15 Marlas against a total consideration price of Rs,250,000.
Exh. P-7 further reveals that the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 3678, 3679 are contiguous to each other in a compact block. Therefore, the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pre-emptor is entitled to file a suit for pre-emption in respect of the land of his choice is misconceived. The law does not give powers to a pre-emptor to file a suit for pre-emption in respect of the land of his choice or to select the superior category of land and to leave the inferior class of land.
9. As a result of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the suit for partial pre- emption is not maintainable. So on this sole ground, this civil revision is dismissed.