' NAIMUDDIN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment dated 16-6-1991 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R.No,294-D of 1989.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Sooba Khan sold agricultural land in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 1-2-1978 to the petitioners, which became the subject-matter of two rival claims for preemption in two separate suits maintained by respondent No,1, Painda Khan as a collateral and respondent No,2, Mst. Mehr Khatoon as a niece of vendor (brother's daughter). The trial Court decreed the suit on 27-2-1988 on finding that rights of both the pre-emptors were superior qua the petitioners and the land was divided in equal share between the two pre-emptors without deciding as to their inter se superiority of right. Two appeals were filed which were heard together and dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chakwal by the judgment dated 20-12-1988 on the basis of the judgment in the case of Muhammad Ismail etc. v. Ghulam Haider etc. (PLD 1988 Lah. 691), though the learned District Judge was of the opinion that Painda Khan was entitled to get the entire land to the complete exclusion of Mst. Mehr Khatoon, because in law rival pre-emptors could succeed in order of succession. Therefore Painda Khan filed Civil Revision No, 294-D of 1989 Civil Revision No,39-D of 1990, claiming that the entire land should have been decreed in his favour.
The learned in the High Court, on a concession made that Painda Khan was entitled to the entire land, set aside the consolidated decrees passed below, decreed the pre-emption suit of Painda Khan in its entirety and dismissed the suit filed by Mst. Mehr Khatoon. It may be noted that the judgment in the case of Muhammad Ismail etc. (supra) was reversed by this Court in the case reported as Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs and others v. Ghulam Haider and 3 others (1991 SCMR 1443).
3. We have heard S. Mumtaz Hussain Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that no decree could be passed after 31st July, 1986 on the sole ground of relationship with the vendor, as has been done in this case, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar All and others v. Muhammad All and others (PLD 1988 SC 287). But, the fact is that the suit was filed in 1979 and was decreed on 20-11-1982 but the decree was set aside and the case was remanded in appeal and again decreed, thus, a decree was passed before 31st July, 1986 in this matter. The learned counsel further submitted that the decree was a nullity because the suit was brought against petitioners Nos3 and 4, namely, Muzaffar Hussain and Aftab Hussain, showing them as majors but they were, in fact, minors. We find on record that an application was made for amendment and they were represented through their father Nawab Khan and learned counsel Malik Safdar Hussain. Thus, it could not be said that the suit, as initially filed, was a nullity.
Accordingly, the rule laid down in the case of Sardar All and others (supra) will govern this case.
4. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and, accordingly, dismiss it.