MUNIR A. SHEIKH. J:; This revision petition arises from a suit filed by the respondent for possession of land through pre-emption on the ground that he was co-sharer in the khata from where land in dispute was sold and also the collateral of the vendor. The learned trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 10.5.1988 on the ground that the respondent was proved to be co- sharer. This was assailed in appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned Addl: District Judge, Narowal, which has been dismissed as barred by the through judgment and decree dated 27.6.1988.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no talabs were made according to Islamic Injunction therefore, according to the law declared by the Supreme Court the suit could not have been decreed after 31.7.1986 as at no stage of the proceedings in the suit a decree was passed in favour of the respondent before the said date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the decree in this case was passed in favour of the respondent on 10.5.1988 by the learned trial Court and that at no stage of proceedings any decree was passed in favour of the respondent before 31.7.1986. He, however, submitted that the appeal of the petitioners before the learned lower appellate Court was barred by the, therefore, the revision petition should be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments. According to the law declared by the Supreme Court the learned trial Court was vested with no jurisdiction to pass the decree after 31.7.1986. In this view of the matter, the decree passed by the learned trial Court was absolutely without jurisdiction and nullity. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly relied upon judgments reported as Malik Khawaja Muhammad and others Vs. Mardum&n Babar Kahol and others (1987 SCMR page 1543) and Mst.
Rchmat Bibi and others Vs. Punnu Khan and others (1986 SCMR page 962) that against such a null and void decree the limitation could not be impediment in the way f setting it aside. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon judgment reported in S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi Vs. The Chairman. Screening. Committee. Lahore and another 11980 SCMR 711)_to argue that a void order should not be set aside to' circumvent the limitation.
5. I have examined the reported judgment in detail and find that the facts and the law involved in this case were different from the facts of this case. Even in this judgment it has been held that a void order must be struck down and setting aside of such order should be refused in case it would be inequitable and unjust. The decree passed by the learned trial Court since is -without jurisdiction, according to the law declared by the Supreme Court. It is imperative under the Constitution for all the Courts and the other authorities to at in aid of the law declared by the Supreme Court. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. This Court even otherwise under Section 115 CPC is competent to strike it down after having been satisfied that the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to pass it and exercised jurisdiction not vested in it under the law.
6. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition is accepted. The judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.