GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.--Civil revision emanated from a suit brought by the petitioner for pre-empting sale of land measuring 3 Kanals, 4 Marlas, at Pind Suleman Makhan, in Tehsil and District Attock, by Muhammad Aslam to respondent Muhammad Nawaz for a sale-price of Rs. 20,000/- through sale- mutation No.294 sanctioned on 15-5-1989. Suit was instituted on 5-5-1990. Preemption was claimed on the grounds of co-ownership, contiguity and participation in immunities, such as sharing user of a common passage. Reference to performance of Talabs found mention in the plaint. Before the defendant in the suit could be served, trial Court suo-motu found that the suit could not proceed and dismissed it on 26-6-1990. In para-3 of its order, the Court said:- "The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Full Bench Judgment dated 26-5-1990 in the case of Government of NWFP and others against Malik Said Komal Shah and others, held that after 31st July 1986, sections 15 and 30 of the Punjab Preemption Act 1913, have completely ceased to have any force, and, as a result, the entire Act had become ineffective, therefore, no suit can proceed on the basis of the said Act after 31st July 1986, except those in which a decree had been passed before the said date. In view of this decision, this suit cannot proceed. The plaintiff have passed (presumably it should be based) his claim on the ground of co-ownership and contiguity, which cannot be made basis for a judgment in his favour in view of the case-law referred to above, the suit of the plaintiff fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of the suit." Case of Malik Said Kamal is reported in PLD 1986 Supreme Court 360. The trial Court, presumably meant a reference to the case of suo-motu Shariat Review Petition No.1-R of 1989 decided by the Supreme Court on 26th May, 1990.
2. Petitioner sought review of the order of the trial Court, passed on 26- 6- 1990,dismissing the pre- emption suit by filing an application for it. Respondent resisted review. It was stated that review petition was barred by time; that application in its existing form was not maintainable; that the petitioner had no cause to file the application. On merits,it was stated that alike petitioner, respondent was also a co-owner. Further, it was stated that necessary Talabs had not been performed. On 6-12-1990, trial Court dismissed the review petition by observing that Punjab Ordinance XVIII of 1990, issued on 27th August, 1990,had run out its life on 25th November, 1990,and, therefore, the application filed under it was not maintainable. Against this order of the trial Court, petitioner went up in appeal to District Judge, Attack. Vide order dated 2-1-1991, he dismissed the appeal by a short order. Learned District Judge said:- "For seeking review of the order dated 26-6-1990, the petitioner had moved an application for review of the said order which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide his order dated 6-12-1990 against which he has . Come up in the present appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has not been able to deny that the order having been confirmed in review, no appeal remains competent. That being so, it is so held and the in limine, for its being incompetent."
This order of the learned Judge below has been assailed in revision in this Court. While the revision petition lay in motion hearing, petitioner applied for amending his plaint in the pre-emption suit for adding a statement on "Zaroorat" and avoidance of "Zarar". This application was filed during course of the hearing of the civil revision today.
3. Two important points arise for consideration. First point was, whether in absence' of 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar', pre-emption could be allowed under the new legislation, and, the second related to propriety for permitting amendment to the pleading at revisional stage. As far the first point, I have already expressed in Civil Revision No.l50-D/1991 decided on 29-2-1992 that without expressing 'Zaoorat' or 'Zarar' sought to be avoided, as visualized in section 6(2) of the new law, pre-emption could not succeed. Therefore, absence of a statement on 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' was fatal to the petitioner's claim of pre-emption. In regard to the prayer for allowing amendment to the plaint in the pre-emption suit, which was not claimed in the earlier stages of litigation, though the powers were were, yet in the interest of justice, it may not be proper to allow it for assisting introduction of possible false pleas. Punjab Preemption Ordinance, 1990, (Ordinance V of 1990) was promulgated on 29th March, 1990. In its sub-section 2 of section 6, it provided for 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' for claiming pre-emption. In all the Ordinances subsequently promulgated and the Ait, this provision of law was retained. Pre-emption suit was instituted on 5- 5-1990. Yet, in the plaint, there was no reference to 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar'. Also, no serious attempt was made for incorporating the statement on 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar', while the suit was in the trial Court or in appeal before the learned Judge below. Also, no such ground was taken in the revision petition itself. Therefore, allowance of the prayer shall cause serious injury to the opposite party, in addition to a fear for taking false plea for meeting the requirement of law. In this view of the matter, civil revision is rendered unmeritorious, and, is dismissed in limine.