' The civil revision arose out of a pre-emption suit which was decreed by the trial Court on 26-5- 1982 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners against the defendants-respondents in respect of a piece of land measuring 76 Kanals 4 Marlas situated in the area of village Gilkala, then Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali (now Tehsil Mankera, District Bhakkar) on the payment of Rs.12,226 as pre-emption money. Dissatisfied with the findings of the trial Court on the question of price of the land, the defendants respondents went up in appeal and the learned District Judge, Bhakkar, vide his judgment and decree, dated 10-3-1983, enhanced the sale price of the suit land from Rs.12,226 to Rs.47,625. Aggrieved by these findings, the plaintiffs-petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The contest between the parties before this Court remains confined only to Issues Nos.3 and 6 which are in the following terms.
Issues Nos. 3 and 6.
(3) Whether the sum of Rs.47,625 had been fixed in good faith or actually paid at the time of sale?
OPD.
(6) If Issue No.3, is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land? O.P.Parties.
3. It may b4 mentioned here that the learned trial Judge in this case seems to have followed an unusual procedure. The record shows that vide order, dated 24-11-1981, he, after writing the facts of the case as embodied in the pleadings of the parties and the issues arising out of them, dealt with all the issues but deciding Issues Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 against the defendants, left Issue No.6 relating to market value of the suit land undecided for want of adequate evidence, and proceeded to summon the Revenue Patwari as a Court witness and directed him to bring the record of mutations entered and sanctioned during five years preceding the date of sale. He did not touch Issue No.1 at all. Subsequently, vide order, dated 26-5-1982, written in vernacular after recording the statement of Revenue Patwari as C.W.1 and through his statement bringing on the record excerpt of five years average price (Exh.C.W.1/1), proceeded to decide Issue No.6 on the basis of this document. He held that the average sale price of the suit land was Rs.12,226 at the time of its sale. On the basis of copy of pedigree-table (Exh.P.15) he decided Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. As a result of his findings on these two issues, he decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-petitioners against the defendants-respondents on the payment of Rs.12,226.
4. It appears that the defendants-respondents did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1981 of the learned trial Judge by which he had decided four out of six issues and they filed appeal only against the judgment and decree, dated 26-5-1982. They could only call in question the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos.1 and 6 but curiously enough they called in question the findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos.1 and 3 and altogether left out Issue No.6 which was co-related with Issue No.3 and had a material bearing on the case.
5. The learned District Judge, who dealt with the appeal, did not advert to this aspect of the matter and proceeded to discuss issue No.3 only and ultimately came to the conclusion that the defendants-respondents had succeeded in proving the payment of the entire original sale price of Rs.47,625 and reversing the findings of the trial Court on Issue No.3, decreed the suit on the payment of this amount. In other words, Issue No.6, on the basis of the findings whereof the trial Court had decreed the suit on the payment of Rs.12,226 remained unchallenged and undealt with.
It appears that the learned District Judge did not go through the memorandum of appeal, the order of the learned trial Judge dated 24-11-1981 and his final judgment, dated 26-5-1982.
6. Thus, it is obvious that both the Courts below handled this case in a most careless manner, displaying their inefficiency. So far as the trial Judge is concerned, I would, rather, go a step further to say that his order even smacks at his integrity, moreso when he, ignoring the clear admission of the plaintiffs-petitioners regarding the payment of Rs.20,655 as sale price of the suit land by their opponent, decreed the suit on the payment of Rs.12,226.
7. Anyhow, since the learned counsel for the petitioners has offered to pay sum of Rs.47,625 as sale price of the suit land in accordance with the judgment and decree of the appellate Court to the respondents and their counsel is agreeable to the offer of the learned opposing counsel, the civil revision is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.47,625, less already paid by them as one-fifth of pre-emption money, for their opponents within two months from the date of this order, failing which their suit shall stand dismissed.