' This petition seeking revision of the order of the learned District Judge, Sialkot, dated the 6th March, 1982 accepting respondent l's appeal against and reversing the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Daska, dated the 21st October, 1975 and remanding the suit for fresh trial arises out of the following circumstances. Taj Khan respondent 3, sold 26 kanals 14 marlas of land in dispute, situate in the area of village Siranwali, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, to Ata Muhammad, respondent 2, and mutation No, 51 touching the sale was sanctioned on the 26th June, 1973 on the 22nd October, 1973, Hoshiar Khan respondent 1, instituted suit to pre-empt the sale. The basis of his claim for possession superior pre-emptive right was two-fold. He alleged himself to be an heir of respondent 3 and co-owner of the land in question. In his written statement respondent 2 averred that he had sold the land to Abdul Karim, petitioner, on the 6th November, 1973. Therefore, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No, 3 in the suit.
2. On contest being put by the petitioner and respondent No, 2 the learned trial Civil Judge settled issues on the points of superiority of respondent l's pre-emptive right, limitation, partial pre- emption, valuation, fixation of sale price of Rs, 14,000 and market-value of the property in dispute.
After recording the plaintiff's partial evidence and without receiving the contesting defendant's evidence the learned Civil Judge disposed of the suit-on the sole issue touching pre-emptive right of the plaintiff. He dealt with only the point of relationship of the plaintiff to the vendor. He formed the view that the plaintiff was not an heir of the vendor and, therefore, non-suited him.
3. In appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent No, I, the learned District Judge observed that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Civil Judge was not legal and proper and that in the absence of complete evidence of the parties he was not in a position to dispose of the appeal finally. Therefore, setting aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge he remanded the case for trial afresh.
4. It is not possible to enter any caveat to the decision of the learned District Judge. The procedure followed by the learned Civil Judge to dispose of the suit is not endorsed by the provisions of the Code B of Civil Procedure. He ought to have given decision on the issues after the parties had adduced their complete evidence. The remand order is quite correct. There is no room for interference therewith. This petition is without any force and is dismissed in limine.
5. As the suit is fairly old the learned Civil Judge, Daska, seized with its trial is directed to give it priority over other cases and decide it of within three months.