' This appeal has arisen from a pre-emption suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 13-6-1970 through which appeal against judgment and decree dated 4-12-1969 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his suit has been rejected by the learned lower Appellate Court.
2. The appellant claimed right of pre-emption on the ground of ownership in the estate and collateralship. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to mention Khasra numbers of the land which were given to the vendee in lieu of the land sold in consolidation, through judgment dated 4-12-1%9. The appellant filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has also been dismissed through judgment dated 13-6- 1970.
3. Respondents Nos,1 and 2 made statement before the learned trial Court at the initial stage of the suit acknowledging the right of pre-emption of the appellant conceding the suit but no decree was passed by the learned trial Court against them qua their share in the land as vendees.
Respondents Nos,3 and 4 contested the suit and on their objection the same was dismissed as a whole. The appellant and respondents Nos,3 and 4 have moved C.M. No,5603/C of 1978 praying that the suit of the appellant may be decreed as respondents Nos,3 and 4 accepted the right of pre-emption of the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos,1 and 2 raised an objection which is to the effect that since no decree was passed in favour of the appellant at any stage of the proceedings before 31-7-1986, therefore according to the rule laid down in judgment reported as Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), no decree can be passed in favour of the appellant at this stage and the suit is not maintainable.
5. The argument has force. Since the Court is vested with no jurisdiction to grant any decree to the appellant at this stage for the above reasons, therefore, in my view no decree can be passed in favour of the appellant even on the basis of compromise between the appellant and respondents Nos,3 and 4. If respondents Nos,3 and 4 or any other respondent want to acknowledge and accept the right of pre-emption of the appellant in the land they may transfer the same to the appellant of their own.
6. For the foregoing reasons the appeal has no merits which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.