JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIR, J.-Suits (No.412/1 of 1986 and 413/1 of 1986) of the plaintiff-petitioner for possession through pre-emption of the land in dispute were decreed by the judgments and decrees dated 19.1.1988 of the Civil Judge, D.I.Khan. However, on appeals by the vendee-defendant, the learned District Judge on the basis of the various authorities of the august Supreme Court including Government of NWFPVs..Said Kamal Shah (P.L.D. 1986 S.C360) and Sardar Ali..Vs..Muhammad AlifP.L.D.1988 S.C.287) while accepting the appeals, non-suited the plaintiff-pre- emptor. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge dated 1.3.1989, the plaintiff- petitioner has preferred civil revision petitions Nos.176 and 177 of 1989 respectively. Suit (No.142/1 of 1987) of the pre-emptor-petitioner was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1987 of the Civil Judge, D. I.Khan. The learned District Judge, D.I.Khan by his judgment dated 18.4.1989 on the application of the vendees-defendants, relying on the aforesaid judgments of the august Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge the plaintiff has come to this Court through civil revision petition No. 160 of 1989.
2. Since common question of law, as to whether the learned appellate Court on the authorities of the august Suprme Court correctly dismissed the suits of the plaintiffs-petitioners, is involved in all the aforesaid three civil revision petitions, these are being disposed of by this single order.
3. The view expressed by the august Supreme Court in the above referred authorities has since been reviewed and in its recent pronouncement in revision petition N0.8O-R/88 in para. 21 has held that:- "One thing that stands out in the Scheme of Chapter 3-A of Part-VII of the Constitution is that the Court has been given the power of applying the test of repugnancy, of giving a prospective declaration of repugnancy and of striking down prospectively a provision of the law under challenge or under examination. The Court has not been given any power whatsoever to legislate, to engraft its observations, findings, or declarations on the law not held to be repugnant, and otherwise allowed to hold the field. The "Talabs", even if sine qua non for advancing successfully every claim based on Islamic law of Preemption, cannot be imported or engrafted into the left over statutory provisions of Pre-emption law not challenged, not examined and allowed for the time being to remain intact."
4. Respectfully following the reviewed dictum of the august Supreme Court reproduced above, I hold that the question of "Talab" .Had neither been challenged nor examined in the reported case of Said Kama! Shah and, therefore, it could not be imported or engrafted into the left over statutory provisions of the pre-emption Law. The dismissal of the suits of the pre-emptors on that score was, therefore, not warranted by law.When decision in Said Kamal Shah's case, which was quoted as precedent for the subsequent reported cases, was pronounced, the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 had not come into force. On the other hand, in the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, the question of "Talab" was not even contemplated. In these circumstances, the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dismissing the suits of the plaintiff-pre-emptons cannot be maintained.
5. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeals in a summary manner in that he did not give his findings on the various issues framed and adjudicated upon by the trial Court. It is the consistent view of the superior Courts that it is the duty of the lower/appellate Court to give its findings on all the points involved in the appeal as contemplated by rule 31 of Order XLI C.P.C. This summary disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Court has left no alternative for this Court but to remand the cases to that Court to give its findings on all the points falling for determination in all the three cases.
6. Resultantly, I would accept all the three revision petitions, set aside the judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge, D.I.Khan, and remand the cases to him for his decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the appellate Court on 14.12.1989. No orders as to costs.