KHALIL UR REHMAN KHAN, J.- The necessary facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioners claiming superior right of pre-emption on the grounds of contiguity and owner ship in the Deh. The suit was resisted by the petitioners/vendees and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.10.1980 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for the reason that court fee had not been paid and that the suit was bad on account of misjoinder of cause of action and barred by the. The respondent/pre- emptor assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge Okara vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.1987 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. This led to the filing of present second appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/vendees submitted that no decree of pre-emption on the grounds of contiguity and ownership in the Deh could be granted after 31st of July, 1986 in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of N.W.F.P. Vs. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 S.C. 360). Reliance is also placed on Sardar Ali etc. Vs. Muhammad Ali etc. (PLD 1988 S.C. 287). Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert -the a forenoted plea of the learned counsel for the appellants. Obviously, no suit of pre-emption can be decreed on the ground of contiguity and ownership after the 31st of July, 1986. The learned first appellate Court, therefore, acted illegally in decreeing the suit of the respondent/pre-emptor. The impugned judgment and decree dated 23.7.1987 is, therefore,set aside with the result that the decree passed by the trial Court stands restored. This appeal, therefore, succeeds. Parties are left to bear their own cost. The respondent/pre-emptor may withdraw the sale consideration including Zar-i-panjum deposited if any, from the trial Court.