This judgment will dispose of the present revision petition as well as Civil Revision No.1377-D of 1988 as the questions of law and facts involved in both these matters are common.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are that the respondent in both these petitions filed two suits for possession through pre---emption against the petitioner claiming superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being co-sharer, owner in the estate and contiguity.
The suits were resisted by the petitioner but as the respondent was able to substantiate his claim of being co-sharer the learned trial Court decreed the suits on 28-3-1987. On appeals of the petitioner these judgments and decrees were not interfered with by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur and the same were maintained vide judgments and decrees, dated 13-7-1988. Hence these revision petitions.
3. Mr. Aslam Shahid .Advocate has filed powers on behalf of the respondent but today has not turned up. In these circumstances the revision petitions have been heard ex parte. The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suits even on the ground of co-sharer could not be decreed after 31-7-1987 in view of the judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case PLD 1986 SC 360 as there was no averment in the plaints that the pre-emptor-plaintiff had made talabs at the relevant time in the mode prescribed by Islamic jurisprudence.
4. I have gone through the plaints and find that no averment was made therein as to the making of talabs in the mode prescribed by Islamic Jurisprudence. This plea stands further supported by the cases of Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh 1988 SCM R 1799 and Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC 701. In view of above the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained. The judgments and decrees, dated 28-3-1987 passed by the learned trial Court and the judgments and decrees, dated 13-7-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge are set aside with the result that the suits stand dismissed. The revision petitions thus succeed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./N-234/L