JUDGMENTKHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- -This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.5.1989 whereby the learned Additional District Judge,' Faisalabad had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1989 by virtue of which the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad had dismissed his pre-emption suit.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present revision petition are that Muhammad Yasin petitioner instituted a pre-emption suit for the possession of the suit land (detailed in the heading of the plaint) against Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Rafique respondents who had purchased the said land from A/jf.Surayya Begum vendor through sale mutation No.958 dated 15.12.1985. The petitioner claimed superior right of pre-emption qua the respondents on the basis of the qualification that he was a co-sharer in the suit Khata. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 8 issues were framed. When the case was fixed for the petitioner's evidence in rebuttal the respondents moved an application for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirement of Talabs as envisaged in Islam. The appliacation was resisted by the petitioner but the learned trial court vide judgement and decree dated 15.1.1989, relying on he Supreme Court's decisions reported as PLD 1988 S.C 412, PLD 1988 S.C 355 and PLD 1988 S.C 701, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner lodged an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Addl.District Judge, vide judgment dated 2.5.1989. The petitioner has questioned the propriety of the said judgments and decrees of the courts below in the present revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties' counsel and have also gone throuhg the material available on record.
4. In its recent decision in Ahmad Vs. Abdul Aziz reported as PLD 1989 S.C 771, the Supreme Court has held that a co-sharer could validly preempt a sale through a suit and in such suit Talabs were not necessary. In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the respondents found himself unable to defend tha impugned judgments and decrees. The grounds on which the petitioner's suit as well as appeal were dismissed do not have any validity. Consequently the revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the learned trial court for dedcision on merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.