1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court and revived through the review order dated 7-4-1991 is directed against the judgment dated 10-11-1985 of the Peshawar High Court whereby in a preemption matter the Civil Revision of Anar Gul vendee/appellant was dismissed and that of Gulfam respondent a rival pre-emptor was allowed to the extent of half of the suit land. Mst. Hasan Basri another pre-emptor also succeeded to the extent of one-half. Leave to appeal was granted both to Mst. Hasan Basri and Anar Gul on noticing the following facts and points:- "The vendee/petitioner's defence on claim of tenancy has been rejected by the High Court on the ground that this right was found by the erstwhile Shariat Bench of the Peshawar High Court, as against Injunction of Islam in Naimatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1979 Peshawar 104; therefore, it could not be made basis of defence of Anar Gul vendee/petitioner. His learned counsel has argued that the said judgment was suspended by the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court, therefore, it was not effective at the relevant time in this case.... ...
2. ' In the petition of Mst. Hassan Basri, her learned counsel has contended that Gulfam respondent, the rival pre-emptor, had lost right of preemption as co-sharer. The purchase mutations in his favour which constituted the base for his right, had been cancelled. And his ex parte decree against this cancellation was also ineffective as the same suspended on an application for setting aside the same. Thus, I argued, he had no subsisting right of pre-emption at the relevant dal ..,. This argument also merits examination."
3. ' The appeal of Mst. Hassan Basri stood disposed of separately but on today's heating of the appeal of Anar Gul, the decision and verdict reached would also affect to an extent every party, in this matter.
4. The first point to be resolved is: whether, the rejection of the revision of Anar Gul by the High Court on the touchstone of a decision by the erstwhile Shariat Appellate Bench of Peshawar High Court Haji Naimatullah Khan and another v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Law PLD 1979 Pesh. 104 can be maintained. The answer is in the negative. The said decision of the Peshawar High Court stood suspended on the filing of an appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court as it was so constituted then. See Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 Supreme Court 287. It was realised by all the learned counsel during the hearing that the revision was liable to be accepted on this point alone.
5. The next question arose: whether the case should now be remanded to the High Court after accepting Anar Gul's appeal with a direction to decide whether Anar Gul vendee/defendant could succeed on the ground of tenancy and if so to the extent of how much area. It was realised by all the learned counsel that it is possible that if the case is remanded to the High Court, it may by further remanded to the District Court because after noticing the question of the existence/extent of Anar Gul's tenancy no verdict was rendered by the Appellate Court on this question. It was also realised that for no fault of the parties they would be rendered destitute by a prolonged litigation over a dispute which relates only to a small piece of land. No doubt unfortunately for litigants like the parties in this case; the litigation itself, vis-a-vis, the peculiar culture thereof is a point of honour and they spend their money, time and fight unnecessarily in a counter productive exercise yet it is a part of life. Hence it was put to the learned counsel whether it is not possible for the Bar in Pakistan to follow the practice in the superior Courts of some of the civilized countries; namely, of submitting a memorandum of agreed facts. Because, whatever is the reality (shorn of falsehood and embroideries) it must be known to all the parties. All the three learned counsel took time to make an attempt on the said lines. Within less then half an hour they have produced an agreed memorandum of facts in this case. It is reproduced below which is signed by all the learned counsel:-- "We have agreed that Anar Gul appellant was in possession of Khasra No,2371/1946-47 measuring 4 Kanals 15 Marlas as a tanant with effect from Kharif 1969 up to Rabi 1972, whereafter he is recorded as a tenant without payment of Lagan on account of purchase.
6. "Out of 4 Kanal 15 Marlas the share of vendors was 16/144= 1/9 shares equivalent to 10-1/2 Marlas out of 4 Kanals 15 Marlas.
7. ' We agree that Anar Gul appellant may be left with 10 Marlas only and with regard to 10 Marlas the suits of respondent Hassan Basri and Gulfam may be dismissed and the remaining decree of the Peshawar High Court be maintained. Out of 4 Kanals 2 Marlas Anar Gul shall retain 10 Marlas and shall deliver physical possession of 3 Kanals 12 Marlas (1-K 16-M to Hassan Basri and 1-K 16-M to Gulfam) within 10 days from today, failing which he would lose his right to retain 10 Marlas even. For Gulfam respondent.
8. (Sd.)
9. (Z.Mahfooz Khan) Advocate-on-Record (Sd.) Advocate For Appellant (Sd.) Advocate (Sd.)
10. (Abdul Hameed Qureshi), Advocate-on-Record ' Note.--We make this statement orally, if agreed."
11. ' Learned counsel have also stated that if the appeal is accepted it will save the parties from further torture of litigation in this case. We appreciate the sentiments and concern expressed by the learned counsel for their clients and accordingly accept the agreed statement as recorded above with the result that the appeal is allowed in terms of the agreement reproduced above.
12. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has undertaken that the appellant would hand over the possession in accordance with the said agreement without waiting for any further proceedings in the nature of execution subject of course to the payment/adjustment of the pre-emption money and other related aspects. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Before closing this judgment it needs to be noted that this appeal was heard in the presence of some senior members of the Bar--both from Peshawar and Rawalpindi. After some discussion the honourable Members of the Rawalpindi Bar have offered that if required by the Supreme Court, they would, in future submit as a part of point noted index prescribed by the Court an agreed statement of facts signed by the counsel for both the sides as it has happened this case. The Registrar shall examine this question further, vis-a-vis, the existing state of Rules of the Supreme Court. He will address formal letters to the President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association Rawalpindi Bench, as well as to the President of Rawalpindi District Bar Association. If there is positive response by honourable Members of Rawalpindi Bar to undertake to do the needful as indicated above, formal amendment would be made in the prescribed form for submitting the Point Noted Index, in the first instance regarding the hearing of the civil matters. The office and the Members of the Bar may also make suggestions for similar agreed statements to the extent possible in matters other than civil matters. They might be considered and adopted if the experiment regarding civil matters succeeds. It will be confined for the time being only in cases in which the Members of Bar from Rawalpindi are to appear.
14. ' The learned Members from the Peshawar have made similar offer. They may on their own place the proposal before their Bar Association and if it is carried through, the resolution may be sent to office for further processing and action.
15. ' We are grateful to the honourable Members of the Bar who have assisted the Court in respect of the foregoing feature of the administration of justice in so far as this Court is concerned. If similar proposals and efforts are made, they might change the entire culture of litigation in this country which would in turn save/release time, energies and funds enough to divert towards more useful enterprise.