ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 27-1-1986.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant brought a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the disputed property. According to the appellant, the vendor had sold the disputed land to Hassan Khan respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.5,000. Hassan Khan denied having purchased the suit land. The vendor was served through substituted service by publication in newspaper. After the publication of notice. An application was filed praying that !He names of defendants Nos.2 to 12 be struck off as they had nothing to do with the case. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant on payment of Rs.20,342 Hassan Khan challenged this order in appeal which was dismissed as Hassan Khan withdrew the same. Muhammad Ikramullah and others also filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge. They challenged these.
Orders before the High Court in a Revision Petition which was accepted.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Ikramullah and others initially contested the suit but then at the trial made a statement that they had not sold the land. The representatives of the vendors challenged the decree of the trial Court before the District Judge and the High Court. The High Court accepted their plea that there was no sale. The vendors and the vendees have not produced evidence. On the basis of the evidence of the appellant, the suit was decreed. It was stated by the appellant that the suit land was sold for a consideration of Rs.5,000. There is only Khasra Girdawari showing that he had paid the share of the produce to Hassan Khan. It is in the interest of justice that the vendor and the vendee may also be given a chance so that the trial Court may come to a correct conclusion. In this case, the decree was passed by the trial Court on the evidence of one party only.
4. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the trial Court with the direction to examine all the three contesting parties including the alleged vendees' heirs and vendors' heirs arid then decide the suit on merits.
There will be no order as to costs.