' This petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against judgment and decree, dated 6-1-1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal whereby he dismissed petitioners' appeal and maintained the judgment and decree, dated 8-11-1977 of the learned Civil Judge, Okara decreeing the suit of Ahmad respondent No, 1.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Ahmad son of Bahli respondent instituted a suit on 5-12-1973 for possession of the suit land by exercising his right of pre-emption against the vendees petitioners, In the plaint it was alleged that he had a superior right of pre-emption being tenant of the suit land and the real brother of the vendor. The learned trial Court recorded evidence of the plaintiff on the issues already framed by him arising out of the pleadings of the parties, when on 19-5-1976 Ordinance XX of 1976 was promulgated which later on became Act XLVIII of 1976 (Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976). By virtue of the aforesaid provision of law paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation No, 115 of 1972 was amended and new sub-paragraph was added, which reads:- "(5)--All suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in a tenancy shall be exclusively entertained, heard and decided by the Collector within whose jurisdiction the land in respect of which the right of pre-emption has been claimed is situated, and all such suits which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 shall, on such commencement, stand transferred, to the Collector concerned."
' The petitioners defendants also led evidence in support of their case. The learned trial Judge while deciding the suit under issue No, 1 observed that he had no jurisdiction to decide the suit on the basis of plaintiff's claim being tenant and he was advised to move the relevant forum for determination of his right on that ground. He, however, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff- pre-emptor being real brother of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption as against the vendees.
3. The petitioners preferred appeal against the aforementioned judgment and decree in which it was pleaded that the learned Civil Judge passed decree without jurisdiction because he did not transfer the suit to the collector concerned in view of the provisions of Act XLVIII of 1976. The petitioners appeal also failed on 6-1-1981 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal as aforesaid. Hence this petition.
4. The- only point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the respondent No,1's suit for possession of the disputed land being based on his right of tenancy stood automatically transferred to the Collector concerned for decision immediately after the enforcement of Ordinance XX of 1976. The Civil Court had ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, stated that the suit filed by respondent No, 1 was not exclusively based on his superior right on the strength of being real brother of the vendor. The learned trial Court did not adjudicate upon pre-emptor's claim of being tenant over the suit land. The learned lower Courts, therefore, committed no illegality and the judgment and decree passed by them were in exercise of jurisdiction duly vested in them.
6. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have seen the documents on the file. The perusal of the amended provision of law shows that only those suit where right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in tenancy was asserted were to be entertained, heard and decided exclusively by the Collector and such suits if pending decision in any Court stood transferred to the Collector concerned.
' It appears that the intention of the legislature was to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Collectors to try pre-emption suits based on the right of tenancy. The position in pending suits where composite rights of pre-emption were claimed was not visualized. Such suits were not necessarily transferable to the Collectors who had no jurisdiction to decide pre-emption suits other than those based on tenancy. In some cases such suits were initially transferred to the Collectors and after their decision on the point of tenancy were sent back to Civil Courts for decision of other grounds of pre-emption mentioned in the plaint. In the instant case the respondent No, 1 sought enforcement of his right of pre-emption on the basis of his relationship with the vendor and being tenant over the land in dispute. The learned Civil Judge did not deal with his right of pre-emption based on tenancy and decided the suit on the basis of his relationship with the vendor. Neither pre-emptor nor the vendees raised any objection about the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge to decide the suit. Obviously, no prejudice was caused to the vendee if the suit was not decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the pre-emptor's right of tenancy.
' The learned first appellate Court rightly recorded the statement of pre-emptor's counsel for the relinquishment of his right based on tenancy. In fact such statement should have been recorded by the learned trial Judge before deciding the suit. The appeal being a step in continuation of the original proceedings of the suit the learned lower appellate Court committed no illegality in recording the statement of the learned counsel for the pre-emptor.
7. In the result I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
8. Civil Miscellaneous No, 1134-C/83 also stands disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.