AJMAL MIAN, J.----Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 26-2-1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court in Civil Revision No.101 of 1988 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner obtained a pre-emption decree in respect of the suit land which was maintained up to the High Court level. She filed an execution application against the respondents for getting the possession of the suit land. The above execution application was resisted inasmuch as the respondents filed an application averring therein that the petitioner was entitled to symbolic possession and not actual possession. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 14-2-1988 held that the decree-holder would only be entitled to "Qabza Malkana". The above order was impugned in an appeal before the District judge which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge by his order dated 18-7-1988. Against the above order, the petitioner riled the aforesaid revision which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has contended that under the pre-emption decree the petitioner was entitled to have the physical possession of the suit land and, therefore, the three Courts below have committed error of law in holding that the petitioner was entitled to Qabza Malkana. It appears that prior to the filing of the execution application the question, whether the petitioner was entitled to Qabza Malkana or the physical possession was agitated and it was concluded by the High Court in the previous revision application that the petitioner was entitled to Qabza Malkana against which no further proceeding was filed. It may be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of para. 3 of the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:-- "3. It is to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation the stand of the vendee judgment-debtor in revision before the High Court was that in case of decree he should be declared entitled to the costs of improvement. This plea was repelled as it was concluded that the decree-- holder would only be entitled to Qabza Malkana and not actual possession on the spot. This finding of the High Court has obtained finality in the sense that the decree-holder was satisfied with it and did not pursue the matter further."
In this view of the matter, the impugned orders/judgments of the Courts below seem to be in consonance with law.
4. Then it was contended by Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan that the petitioner would have no remedy against the respondents in case the view found favour with the learned three Courts below is to be maintained. This apprehension is not well founded as the factum that the three Courts below have held that the petitioner is entitled to Qabza Malkana implies that the respondents' status in respect of the suit land would be that of tenants and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to take action against the respondents in accordance with law treating them as her tenants. With the above observations leave is refused.