1. MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.-This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl.District Judge, Kasur dated 19th of September, 1988 afffirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 25th of November,1987 whereby the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondents was decreed.
2. This suit was filed on 20th of March, 1984 with respect to a house situete in Gali Sagwali, inside Pattunwala Gate,Kasur,which was purchased by the petitioner from its owners Sh. Shafique and others through a deed of sale registered on 6.11.1977 for a sum of Rs.6000/-.The sale was pre- empted on the basis that the respondents/plaintiffs being owners of the contiguous houses, had superior right of pre-emption. This suit was decreed initially on 23rd of April,1984 by the learned trial Court. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner this decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial Court by the addl. District Judge on 8th of October, 1985. This order of remand was challenged by the respondents by filing FAO No.199/85 which was dismissed with the clarification that the trial Court shall frame additional issue and decide the same but the findings on the issues already framed would remain intact.
3. In the post-remand proceedings the suit was again decreed by the trial Court on 25th of November, 1987.The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned AddLDistrict Judge, Kasur on 19th of September, 1988.
2. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this civil revision was that as the suit filed by the respondents was decreed by the trial Court on 25th of November, 1987, it was violative of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Govt, of NWFP through Secretary Law Department Vs.Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 S.C. 360). According to the learned counsel, since there was no assertion of Talabs made in the plaint, no decree could be passed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs after 30th of June, 1986. He has, in this respect, relied upon Aiwaz Khan and another Vs. Allah BakhshtP L D 1988 S.C. 730) as also Ghulam Oadir Vs.Nawab DinCP L D 1988 S.C.701).The learned counsel has further drawn my attention to the authority of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Shoib and others Vs.Member (Revenue) and others (PLD 1988 S.C.355).3. I regret my inability to agree with the learned counsel. As already indicated the suit of the petitioner was initially decreed on 23rd of April, 1984 by the trial Court but the ddl. District Judge on 8th of October,1985 remanded the suit to the trial court. In Sardar Ali Vs.Muhammad AlifP L D 1988 S.C.
4. 287) it was held by the Supreme Court that if once a decree was passed before 31st of July, 1986, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek its restoration regardless of the fact whether the matter was pending before the trial court or any other forum on 3rd of July,1986. It is pertinent to refer here to question No.7 posed by the Court at page 310 and the answer to it which appears at page 344 of the report: Q.7. Whether a plaintiff having obtained a decree before 31st July, 1986, a higher forum remanded the case for fresh decision , will be entitled to seek its restoration regardless of the fact whether the matter is pending before the trial or any higher forum.
5. Ans....... In the light of the discussion and view on the points involved, the answers to questions Nos.l to 5 are in the negative, while questions Nos.6 and 7 are answered in the affirmative."
6. Since a decree in the present case was passed on 23rd of April, 1985, the respondent is entitled to seek its restoration not with standing the remand by the AddLDistrict Judge,in accordance with the law then prevailing. The authorities relie upon by the learnd counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the present case.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.