FALAK SHER J.- This judgment will dispose of writ petitions No. 5138 and 5141 of 1981 on account of commonality of facts and having emanated out of the same order.
2. Resume of the admitted facts necessary for resolving the present controversy are that judgment and decree of the civil court Narowal dated 6.12.1975 passed in petitioners' suit for pre-emption based upon superior right as tenant on appeal, it was set aside, by the learned District Judge, Sialkot on 14.4.1977 in view of the special forum conceived by para 25 of MLR 115 of 1972, and the case was transferred to Assistant Commissioner/Collector- Narowal for disposal in accordance with law; pursuant whereto, the latter dismissed the same on 31.8.1977; however, on appeal, it was set aside by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore, vide order dated 14.6.1978 and the case was remanded for fresh decision. In the second round, though the suit was again dismissed on 4.8.1979, but on appeal, learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore on 25.11.1980 decreeing the same directed the petitioner to deposit the pre-emption amount within 15 days, who instead of complying therewith, through a miscellaneous application submitted that the money having been previously deposited with the Civil Courts, may be adjusted in this behalf, which request was not acceded to by observing that the petitioner can withdraw the same, however, the the for deposit of the pre-emption money was extended upto 31.12.1980; feeling aggrieved thereby the respondent questioned its legality in revision before... Learned Member, Board of Revenue (ROR 2720 and 2721 of 1980) who, vide the impugned order dated 4.10.1981 allowing the same held that the petitioner having failed to deposit the decreed amount within the prescribed the, have lost the right of pre-emption; hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made bi-fold submissions; firstly, the order of learned District Judge, Sialkot dated 14.4.1977 is ab initio void because the expression 'suit' contemplated by para 25 of MLR 115 of 1972 does not include appeal which should have been decided on merits and, alternatively, the preemption money deposited pursuant to the civil Court's decree should have been adjusted by the Revenue authorities; to which learned counsel for the respondent submitted that not only the petitioner did not challenge the judgment of learned District Judge, Sialkot before any competent forum but also submitted to the special forum created by MLR 115 and pursued the remedy thereunder right upto the board of Revenue, therefore, cannot agitate that grievance at this juncture.
4. I am afraid the arguments canvassed at the bar lose sight of the fact that presently in view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Government of N.W.F.P, vs. Said Kamal Shah (PSC 1986 1241 and Ahmad vs. Abdul Aziz (P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 771), no decree can be passed in a tenant's suit for pre-emption, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and is accordingly hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.