' The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision are that one Tajjamal Hussain alienated out of his holding 28 Kanals 9 Marlas of land in favour of the petitioners Bostan and Pehlwan through Mutation No, 914, dated 14-3-1974. Subsequently, Tajjamal Hussain died issueless on 28-3-1974, on which Mutation of inheritance No, 917 was attested on 20.44974 in favour of the respondents.
Against the sale made by Tajjamal Hussain in favour of the petitioners, two pre-emption suits were filed : one by Gul Muhammad respondent No, 1 and other by one Shabbir Ahmad. The pre-emption suit filed by the respondent No, 1, Gul Muhammad succeeded whereas the suit of Shabbir Ahmad was dismissed. Shabbir Ahmad then filed civil suit seeking declaration that he was the sole heir of Tajjamal Hussain. This suit was dismissed with observation by the learned civil Court that the petitioners Bostan and Pehlwan were rightful vendees through Mutation No, 914. The petitioners using the observations of the civil Court had the Mutation No, 964 attested on 30-8-1981, whereby the entire property of Tajjamal Hussain was transferred in their favour. The respondents challenged the orders of AC-II on Mutation No, 964 in appeal which did not iucceed. In the subsequent revision filed by them, however, the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Rawalpindi set aside the orders of the A. C. II on Mutation No, 964 The petitioners are now in second revision against the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner, dated 8-7-1982.
2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties in considerable detail. It is evident from the facts of the case that the petitioners have no claim on the disputed property of Tajjamal Hussain on the basis of sale, which had been pre-empted by respondent Gul Muhammad. The observation mute jay the civil Court in which the petitioners were impleaded as defendants; to the effect that they were rightful vendees was not in the nature of a decree and could not have been used to deprive the respondents from their lawful rights. The orders of the learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, do not invite any interference and the revision is rejected.