1. ' The facts giving rise to this revision application are that originally respondent No, 1 herein purchased the suit land for Rs, 10,000 through registered sale-deed dated 15-10-1978. Thereafter respondent No, 1 sold the suit land in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for Rs, 13,000 through Mutation No, 6301 attested on 22-1-1978. On 13-1-1979 the petitioner herein pre-empted the sale transaction on the ground of co-shareship. As respondent No, 4 was the tenant of the suit land, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the suit sold their shares to respondent No, 4 for Rs, 12,375 through Mutation No, 6427 attested on 19-4-1979. The suit after contest between the parties was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, ride his judgment dated 9-6-1979. He observed that respondent No, 4 was the tenant of the suit land and legally he would have the first right to purchase the suit land and no pre-emption suit would lie against him. He ruled out the contention raised before him that as during the pendency of the suit, respondent No, 4, while purchasing the suit land, had associated with himself strangers, namely, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, he as the tenant of the suit land lost his right of frustrating the claim of a rightful pre-emptor. The learned trial Judge relied upon an authority reported in PLD 1962 Pesh. 34 cited before him. As regards the price of the suit land, the learned trial Judge fixed it Rs, 10,000 on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 15-10-1978. The petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Judge, therefore, he went in appeal to the District Judge who concurred in the finding of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment, dated 6-3-1980. Hence this revision application.
2. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In a case reported in PLD 1976 SC 572; the plaintiff had joined alongwith himself strangers and although the plaintiff had superior right of pre-emption, the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court non-suited him holding that he lost his right by joining alongwith himself strangers. I consider that as in the present case the vendee/tenant have joined alongwith himself strangers, he, in view of the principle laid down in the above authority, should also lose his right of pre-emption against the plaintiff who has otherwise superior right of pre-emption. Even otherwise, the law is clear in cases of this nature.
3. Reference may be made to the Explanation added to section 16 of the N.-W. F. P. Act, 1950 by the Amendment Act, 1972. What is laid down in the said Explanation is that the subsisting right of the plaintiff shall not be lost even if the vendee has after the period of limitation transferred the suit land to a person having right of A pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiff. It is further made clear in the statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the said Explanation that the Amendment in question aims at achieving the effect that after the date of institution of the suit, no such transfer would defeat the plaintiff's right. In the present case, it is conceded that the suit land was transferred to the tenant by the strangers during the pendency of the suit, therefore, he cannot defeat the subsisting right of preemption of the petitioner. I think that the vendee/tenant in a case of this nature should not be allowed to claim exemption from pre-emption. He should suffer from the law of sinker and as otherwise, the pre-emptive right of the petitioner is not denied, the tenant is to be non-suited.
4. ' No other point was urged before me.
5. ' This revision application is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the judgments of the two Courts below, the suit of the petitioner is decreed in his favour. No order as to costs.