1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of the above to petitioners, as they are inter- connected, The relevant facts (in C.P. No.1430/80) are briefly as follows:- On 10-1-1978, land measuring 134 Kanals 12 Marlas situated at village Man, Tehsil and District Kasur was sold by the petitioners to Respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.69,000. On 15-4-1978. Muhammad Shafi, Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre-emption to pre-empt the above sale on payment of Rs.64,000. During the pendency of the suit, however, on 9-9-1978 the petitioners herein (vendors) filed a suit under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act for a declaration that the sale deed that was registered on 10-1-1978 was void.
2. The aforesaid suit for declaration was decreed by a learned Civil Judge, Kasur on 26-9-1978, who found that .The sale deed which was the basis of the suit, for pre-emption was, indeed, void and of no legal effect. The petitioners also placed a copy of the above decree declaring the sale deed to be void in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge (Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Malik), who was seized of pre-emption suit instituted by Muhammad Shafi, Respondent No.1. Notwithstanding the said decree, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of pre-emption filed by Muhammad Shafi, Respondent No.1 on 10-4-1979 on payment of Rs.69,000. The petitioners challenged this decree by an appeal before the District Judge, Kasur. On the other hand, Muhammad Shaft, Respondent No.1, the pre-emptor, also filed an appeal against the petitioners and Respondent No.2 (vendee) against the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1978 passed by Mr. Mansoor Akbar Kaukab, Civil Judge, Kasur, whereby he decreed the suit of the petitioners filed by them under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Both these appeals were disposed of by a single judgment dated 4-4-1979 passed by the District Judge, Kasur. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and accepted the appeal of Muhammad Shafi, Respondent No.1, the pre- emptor.
3. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned District Judge, the petitioners herein preferred a second appeal (R.S.A. No.547/79) before the Lahore High Court. They also filed a civil revision (C.R.
4. No.757-D/79) to challenge the said judgment and decree, insofar as it related to the acceptance of the appeal of Respondent No.1 against the decree dated 26-9-1978 passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners. Both these matters were disposed of by one judgment dated 5-4-1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal as well as the revision. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
5. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that before the decree in the pre-emption suit was passed on 10-1-1979, the sale sought to be pre-empted had already been declared void by the decree dated 26-9-1978. After the aforesaid decree there was no basis left for further proceeding with the pre-emption suit by the pre-emptor or for the trial Court to retain cognizance over the matter. The entire proceedings taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge after the presentation of the decree dated 26-9-1978, which was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction declaring the sale deed, which was basis of the suit for pre-emption, to be void and of no legal effect, were misconceived.
6. Security Rs.2,500.
7. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to add further documents.
8. The respondents shall not alienate the property in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the appeal.