1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court of appellant's Writ Petition which had arisen out of a pre-emption case.
2. The appellant/vendee/defendant remained unsuccessful before the Member Board of Revenue and the High Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted only on the question as to whether the High Court view, that the sale in question on 12-6-1972 did not fall within "Kharif of 1972" which was the starting point for exercise of right of pre-emption under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, was valid. As the leave was granted only on one point the arguments advanced at the Bar were confined to it. After hearing on 4-4-1980 judgment was reserved.
4. ' During the course of the preparation of the judgment it has been noticed that the appellant had taken another point also which if decided in his favour, the appeal would have to be accepted on that point alone. The same as narrated in the petition is that "in terms of Section 6 of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act XLVIII of 1976) a vendor of land comprised in the tenancy of a tenant is not an aggrieved person to file an appeal and/revision challenging the judgment/decree passed by the Collector in a suit for possession through preemption filed by the tenant".
5. ' In this case, the appellant had challenged the sale in favour of respondent No,2 by respondents Nos.3 and 4 through a Court decree. During the pendency of those proceedings respondents Nos.3 and 4 challenged that decree through another civil suit and before the decision of the present suit obtained a decree against respondent No,2 (plaint and order Ex.D1 and D2). Although it was a consent decree and pleaded by the appellant to be a collusive one also, the fact remains that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had become equipped with such a Court decree which had annulled the very sale on the basis of which the appellant had filed his suit for pre-emption. Accordingly, respondents Nos.3 and 4 were also impleaded as defendants in appellants suit. The question: whether, the subsequent change during the pendency of the suit would render the appellant's suit as incompetent on the ground that there was no sale left in the field was examined by the trial Court but decided in favour of the appellant. The higher Revenue forums did not pay much attention to this aspect of the matter.
6. ' Be that as it may, the party which challenged the decree in favour of the appellant was not the vendee i,e. Respondent No,2 but only the vendors-respondents Nos.3 and 4. They succeeded before the Board of Revenue. The decree passed in favour of the appellant was set aside by the said forum and his suit was dismissed. The High Court on appellant's Writ Petition affirmed the decision of the Board of Revenue passed in a revision filed by the vendors only and not by the vendee. In the High Court the objection that the vendors had no locus standi to challenge a pre-emption decree passed in favour of a pre-emptor under paragraph 25 of the M.L.R., was over ruled with the following observation:- "The first point is that Sana Ullah and Irshad Ullah had no locus standi to file a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This is not correct. During the pendency of the petitioners' suit they had been declared owners of the land in dispute by virtue of a decree obtained by them. Therefore, they had an interest in the land in dispute. They were parties to the suit brought by the petitioner and as such it cannot be said that they were not competent to prefer a revision petition before the Board of Revenue."
7. After careful examination of the reproduced decision of the High Court on the point now examined we consider it necessary further to consider these points in addition to the one on which leave to appeal was granted. They are as follows:--
(a) Whether, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 Sana Ullah and lrshad Ullah who are the vendors had any locus standi or were aggrieved persons so as to challenge the decree passed in favour of the appellant/pre-emptor against the vendee.
(b) Whether, the present appellant had any locus standi to file a suit or to continue a suit in respect of a sale through Court decree, which by itself had been annulled by another Court decree before the decision of the pre-emption suit filed by the appellant; and
(c) All other related questions.
8. ' Accordingly, it is directed that this appeal shall be re-heard. Notices to issue.