1. This is an appeal filed by the vendee. The admitted position is that the suit of the respondent was decreed for the first time by lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13-4-1988.
2. 1t is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that suit could not have been decreed after 31-7-1986 in view of the pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Sardar Ali v.
2. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287; Muhammad Shoib v. Member (Revenue) PLD 1988 SC 355 and Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh PLD 1988 SC 730.
3. 3.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has nothing to canvass.
4. 4.The legal position is that the decree in the pre-emption suit cannot be passed on any ground after 31-7-1986. In this behalf reference can be placed to the case of Ghulam Qadir v . Nawab Din A PLD 1988 SC 701. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: - It is reported as Shoib and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others, PLD 1988 SC 355. It was clearly held that"no decree can be passed now after the said date in favour of the pre-emptor on any groundco-ownership, contiguity etc" .....When the Court observed that no Talabs were made, it was also meant to convey that in the context of the then existing pre-emption laws, the Talabs were not only unnecessary and thus were not made, but also, that they could not have been made due to the peculiarities and strictness of the relevant law in this behalf. Said order of the Supreme Court is, Sher Muhammad v. Allah Ditta PLD 1988 SC 412. The following observations therein fully demonstrate how we felt about the frivolous claims regarding Islamic Talabs:- "It is admitted that so far no decree has been passed in their favour. It is not claimed that the requirement of as in Islam was fulfilled these cases. In C.P.S.L.A. No 747 of 1983, learned counsel or the petitioners had not even hear the expression 'TalabsThat being so, no decree can now be passed in their in figmentcourt in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (C.A. No.208 of 1980, decided on 2-5-1 R8; PLD 198 These petitions are accordingly dismissed."
5. 5.The result is that I accept this appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 13-4-1988 and dismissthe suit of the respondent. However, there is no order as to costs.