1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Asghar Abbas and others, plaintiffs, appellants herein, have called in question the judgment dated 24-9-1988 passed by the Lahore High Court, whereby their revision petition against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jhang dated 15-6-1982 dismissing their appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge dated 6-6-1979 dismissing their suit for possession through pre-emption against Muhammad Amin and others defendants/respondents, was dismissed. The leave granting order is to the following effect:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the High Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioners' suit for preemption was in fact decreed on 17-9-1978 and that therefore the same fell to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the previous law.
2. ' The submission prima facie has force. Leave is granted."
3. ' The facts of the case as disclosed in the judgments of the lower forums are that the plaintiffs'/appellants' suit for possession through pre-emption of the suit land against defendants/respondents was initially dimissed on 16-6-1965 on the ground that the suit property being evacuee, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter which was upheld by the appellate Court vide order dated 17-11-1970. The High Court, however, vide order dated 24-9-1977, on the acceptance of the appeal filed by the appellants, held that the sale of the evacuee propety was pre-emptible and, in consequence, remanded the case back to the trial Court for decision on merits of the case. The learned trial Court afforded opportunity to the parties to lead evidence which was availed of by the plaintiffs/appellants but the defendants/respondents failed to produce their evidence resulting in the closure of their evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Vide its judgment and decree dated 17-94978, the learned trial Court granted decree for possession through pre-emption in lieu of Rs,6,600 in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants against the defendants/respondents. This was challenged through an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who allowed the appeal and remanded the case once again to the trial Court for allowing an opportunity to the defendants/respondents to produce their evidence and decision of the case afresh. On the apporaisal of the evidence produced in the case, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 6-6-1979, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants holding the issue of superior right of pre-emption against them. The appellants preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge, who, vide his judgment and decree dated 15-6-1982 maintained the finding of the trial Court and at the same time ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For having made up deficiency in court-fee after seven years of the institution of the suit. The appellants filed revision petition against it before the High Court which was heard by a learned Single Judge alongwith other connected revisions who dismissed the same through the impugned judgment in view of the pronouncement of this Court in case Sardar All etc. v. Muhammad All etc. PLD 1988 Supreme Court 287). Hence the instant appeal through leave of the Court.
4. ' We have heard Mr. S. Muhammad All Zaidi, Advocate, for the appellants, and have perused the record of the case. Respondents have been placed ex parte.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the latest judgments of this Court in case Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1992 SCM R 445) and Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf 1992 SCM R 2117 all those pre-emption suits in which decree was once passed in favour of the preemptor prior to the pronouncement of judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case, further proceedings relating thereto shall be governed and decided under the provision of old Act and the provisions of new Act could not be attracted. These judgments were delivered after the impugned judgment of the High Court and since a decree for pre-emption had already been passed in favour of the appellants on 17-9-1978, prior to the target date in Said Kamal Shah's case, therefore the High Court had to decide the case on merits according to the provisions of the repealed law.
6. ' Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the revision back to it for decision on merit.