1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.----This direct appeal arises out of a pre-emption case. The appellant is the vendee/defendant. The respondents' suit was decreed in 1985. On appeal the decree in respondents' favour was set aside on technical ground regarding deposit of/security for the Zar-e-Panjum. However, the District Court had upheld the judgment of the trial Court on other questions on merits relating, for example, to the superior right of pre-emption and estoppel. On respondents' appeal against the order of remand, before the High Court, the same was set aside on the finding that the approach of the learned trial Judge regarding the question relating to the deposit of Zar-ePanjum and/or substitution of the order for deposit by an order for security, was unexceptionable. The High Court, however, without determining any further issues relating to the merits of the case other than the question of Zar-e-Panjum while setting aside the appellate order, restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/pre- emptor.
2. ' During the course of the arguments it transpired that the controversy in this case regarding Zar-e- Panjum has since been set at rest in a similar case in Malik Barkat Ali Dogar v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 60). Learned counsel for the appellant realising that the said controversy being no more alive and the said judgment going against the appellant raised the question of the prejudice to the appellant caused by the restoration of the trial Court's judgment and decree, by the High Court without hearing and decision on merits regarding the issues other.
3. Than Zar-e-Panjum.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondents in principle did not disagree; but requested that this Court may decide those issues and save the parties from further litigation through a remand order.
5. ' After hearing both of them, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we feel that it would be proper that in order to obtain the opinion of the High Court on factual controversies involved in the other relevant issues, this Court should remand the case to the High Court. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of restoration of the trial Court judgment and decree passed by the High Court on accepting this appeal, we remand the matter to the High Court for decision afresh.
6. ' In order to remove the formal difficulty regarding any technical objection, we in order to do complete justice, permit and direct the appellant to file a formal appeal/cross objection against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 12-12-1988 in so far as the finding on facts and merits ot the case were rendered against the appellant. In this context and the above explained circumstances, we further order the condonation of the delay and other formalities in this behalf. There shall be no order as to costs.