As similar questions of facts and law are involved in Civil Revision Nos.2411-D/1985, 2412-D/1985, 2413-D/1985, 2414-D/1985 and 2415-D/1985, those are also being disposed of by this judgment.
2. This revision petition calls in question the judgment/decree dated the 28th of November, 1985, of the learned Additional District Judge, Fainlabad, whereby the petitioner-vendee's appeal in a pre- emption suit was dismissed.
3. The respondent/pre-emptor sued the petitioner-vendee for pre-emption of the land in question on the ground that he was a real son of the vendor who had sold it away in his absence being away to London. The petitioner resisted the suit taking, among others, a A plea that it had been brought for the benefit of the vendor and one Muhammad Riaz. The Courts below concurrently decreed the suit repelling the plea of estoppel.
4. Mr.Zainul Abidin, Advocate for the petitioner placing reliance upon Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 403 urged that a suit for pre-emption by a son is to be presumed to be mala fide. He added that in this case such an impression was all the more impeccable as the respondent/pre-emptor resided in England and had no mind to settle here.
5. On the other hand it was argued that no such suggestion was made to the respondent in his testimony and that conversely he explained that the vendor felt annoyed of his conduct in refusing to come back. It was added with reference to the contents of para 4 of the written statement that Muhammad Riaz for whom allegedly the respondent brought the suit was not shown either to be related to or having at all any connection with him. No suggestion was made to the respondent in that context too.
6. The contention raised in support of the revision petition does not seem to be well-grounded in the evidence. The respondent categorically denied having agreed to the sale. Rather he disclosed that he had incurred displeasure of his father, in that on being informed of the sale by his in-laws he had rushed back to Pakistan to file the present suit. If the act of sale on the part of the father was the result of annoyance caused to him by the respondent, his suit cannot be easily considered to be mala fide. He seems to be asserting his own right as he was in a way punished by the father.
7. There were five sales by the father and all of them were being pre-empted v other connected suits. There was no indication if the respondent was available in Pakistan when those sales were made. He was in England at the relevant time and that indicator excluded his complicity with the father either in making the sales or pre-empting them.
8. The revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.