' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.16463, 16464,16465, 16466, 16467, 16468 and 16469 of 2005, as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions.
2. All these writ petitions have been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-6-2005 passed by learned lower appellate 'court as well as order passed by learned trial Court against an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the respondents.
3. The factual background of the controversy is that Muhammad Yar and others, Zulfiqar Ali and others, Muhammad Iqbal, Haq Nawaz and Zulfiqar Ali filed five applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the present petitioner arraying respondent of present petitions and also Muhammad Jamil and Mujeeb Alam and others in some petitions, Mentioning that through registered sale deed dated 26-8-1980 Muhammad Jamil purchased land measuring 10-K OM 8-S, the description of the property is duly mentioned in para 1 of the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. Mujeeb Alam respondent filed a pre-emption suit in the civil court, at Sahiwal against Muhammad Jamil and same was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal, dated 20-10-1981; that through registered sale-deed dated 18-3-1984 Zulfiqar Ali, Muhammad Yar and Haq Nawaz applicants of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Now respondent purchased 10-M land each from Mujeeb Alam decree holder of pre-emption suit through registered sale-deed dated 18-3-1984, whereas Muhammad Iqbal applicant of application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Now respondent purchased 12 M land from Muhammad Shaban through registered sale-deed and 8-M 5-S from Muhammad Sharif through registered sale deed dated 18-11-1986 and the said land i.e. 8-M, 5-S were sold to Muhammad Shaban and Muhammad Sharif by Mujeeb Alam decree holder from whom Muhammad Iqbal purchased through above mentioned registered sale-deeds; that Mehmood Ali Shah also filed pre-emption suit against the sale deed dated 26-8-1980 in favour of Jamil on 1-9-1981 in civil court at Pakpattan, wherein at later stage Mujeed Alam was impleaded as party and on the consenting statement of the attorneys of Muhammad Jamil and Mujeeb Alam on 15-9-1987 to the extent of 8-K 0-M 8-S a pre-emption decree was passed in favour of Mehmood Ali Shah present petitioner; that decree dated 15-9-1987 in favour of Mehmood Ali Shah was passed by the then learned Civil Judge without jurisdiction. It was the result of fraud from the part of revision petitioner and said decree is ineffective upon the rights of applicant of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. All the five applications were resisted by Mehmood Ali Shah present petitioner. However, Mujeeb Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Shaban and Muhammad Sharif were proceeded ex parte during the trial of all the above said five applications before the learned Civil Judge.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that on the basis of the pleading of the parties, learned trial Court settled the following issues:--
(i) Whether the petition is not proceedable in view of preliminary objection No. 1 of the written reply?
OPR
(ii) Whether the petition is not proceedable in view of preliminary objection No. 2 of the written reply? OPR
(iii) Whether the petition is not proceedable in view of preliminary objection No.3 of the written reply? OPR
(iv) Whether the petition is not proceedable in view of preliminary objection No.4 of the written reply?, OPR
(v) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR
(vi) Whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside,
(vii) Relief.
5. That after completion of trial, vide consolidated order dated 13-1-1994, learned trial Court accepted the five applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. While the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by Sardar Muhammad and Mst. Razia Begum were accepted vide order dated 18-10- 1994.
6. That aggrieved of the order dated 13-1-1994, the petitioners filed revision petitions which were dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 18-6-2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that principle of lis pendence as contained under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act have not been kept while deciding the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. The provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are not attracted because there is no allegation in the petitions that the judgment was result of fraud or misrepresentation. Learned trial Court had set aside the entire decree, while the claim of the petitioner was in respect of sale of only a portion of the suit-land. All the learned courts below have not applied their judicial mind and impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are result of misreading and non- reading of evidence because a consent decree under repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act was not assailable in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Therefore, writ petition be allowed, orders dated 13-1-1994, 18-10-1994 and 18-6-200 passed by courts below be set aside and be declared illegal, without any lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
7. The case was repeatedly called, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of respondents, who are proceeded ex parte.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. The perusal of record highlights that the learned trial Court in the light of controversial pleadings of the parties filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. Framed the issues and applicants as well as respondents appeared personally as their witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in shape of Exh.Al to Exh.A7. It is also admitted fact that all the applicants of applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. Purchased fractional shares of suit-land from Mujeeb Alam first successful preemptor. Thereafter, the vendors of properties were not in a position to make any conceding statement in favour of petitioners because they were no more owners of the suit-land.
10. The contention of learned counsel that though the law of pre-emption was declared un-Islamic after 31-7-1986 but still a consent decree could be passed, is not warranted under the law. Both the orders passed by learned courts below are neither contrary to law nor perverse to the record. There is concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners and learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments. No interference is called for in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
11. Resultantly, all these writ petitions are dismissed.