1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--Pjr Ghulam Nabi, respondent herein, purchased land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas vide Mutation No,2242, attested on 24-6-1971, from Ata Muhammad for a sum of Rs 1,000 and 1 KanaI 1.5 Marlas vide Mutation No, 2755 attested on the same day viz. 24-6-1971 for a sum of Rs,200 from Mst. Rajan Bibi and Mst. Taj Bibi. Muhammad Sharif, predecessor-in-interest of Alam Khan and others, appellants herein, filed a single pre-emption suit against the said two transactions claiming superior right of pre-emption as against the vendee/respondent. The suit was contested and the respondent, in his written statement, besides denying the superior right of pre-emption of the plaintiff and raising certain technical objections, also specifically pleaded that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment and decree dated 6-11-1975, passed decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants against the defendant/respondent and the appeal filed against it was also dismissed. The vendee/respondent preferred revision petition before the High Court which was accepted by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 3-11-1990 holding the suit as incompetent on account of misjoinder of causes of action, and by setting aside the judgment of the two Courts below remanded the case back to the trial Court to enable the plaintiffs/appellants to file two separate suits in respect of each sale transaction within the specified time, failure to comply whereof shall entail the dismissal of the suit. It was specifically mentioned in the judgment that the right of the plaintiffs/appellants to bring fresh suits shall be subject to all just exceptions and the defendant/respondent shall be entitled to raise any objection that may be available to him. This judgment was assailed through leave of the Court in Civil Appeal No,48 of 1991 which was dismissed as barred by time vide order dated 22-2-1992. Review Petition No,18/92 for the exercise of suo motu review by this Court was submitted by the appellants which was marked to one of us (Mr. Justice Wali Muhammad Khan) by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for examination of the record and necessary opinion about the exercise of suo motu review of the order of this Court referred to above, on limitation as well as merits of the case. In the light of the report submitted by one of us and agreed to by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter was placed before a Bench of this Court which, vide order dated 10-5-1992, reviewed and recalled the order dated 22-2-1992 and ordered fixture of main appeal for hearing. Hence the re-hearing of the main Appeal No,48 of 1991 on the merits of the case.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate, for the appellants; Malik Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate, for the respondents and have perused the record of the case.
3. ' The sole question for determination before us is whether the suit was incompetent on account of misjoinder of causes of action or not. The learned High Court has held it to be so mainly on the ground that the two sale transactions were combined in one suit for pre-emption and the causes of action being different the suit legally could not proceed. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Order II, Rule 3, and section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and submitted that neither the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action nor the High Court could legally reverse the decree passed by the trial Court and concurred by the appellate Court merely on account of any error or irregularity not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court. Both the aforesaid provisions are reproduced below for ready reference:-- "ORDER II
3. Joinder of causes of action.--(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the name defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.
99. No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction.- -No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceeding in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court."
4. It is manifest from the reading of Order II, Rule 3 that a plaintiff can unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant. Needless to mention that in a suit for pre-emption the pre-emptor and the vendee are the only necessary parties and as such the plaintiff/pre- emptor could join against the vendee/defendant several causes of action. The impugned transactions though on behalf of different persons and finalised through two different mutations were sanctioned on the same date. The plaintiffs/appellants righlty joined the two sale transactions in a single suit because if he had filed separate suits, even then they had to be consolidated as common questions of law and A fact regarding right of pre-emption of parties and determination of market value would have been involved. As such the joining of the two transactions in one suit was more proper and convenient than filing of separate suits. Since the law permitted him to join both the sale transactions in one suit, he availed of the said provision and there was nothing illegal or materially irregular in the course adopted by him. The learned High Court failed to notice these provisions of law and, in consequence, the judgment passed by it is patently illegal.
5. The provisions of section 99, C.P.C. Were fully attracted to the controversy agitated before the learned High Court and even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that there was misjoinder of causes of action he could ignore it in view of the mandatory provisions of section 99, C.P.C.
6. Referred above. The impugned judgment of the High Court is not maintainable on this score too.
7. ' The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on the merits of the case, has observed that issues in the case were not properly framed by the trial Court, the question of improvement not properly determined, the copies of the Revenue Record not properly proved and the parties did not appear as their own witnesses. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court and found them shaky.
8. Resultantly, with the acceptance of the instant appeal, the judgments and decrees of the trial Court, appellate Court and of the High Court are set aside, the case is remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh after framing proper issues in the case and allowing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence thereon. The matter being very old, the trial Court shall decide it on priority basis.