' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---These appeals arise out of suits for preemption and have been preferred by the vendees. They all have a common feature in that the suits were decreed in favour of the pre-emptors for the first time after 31-7-1986. In view of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kanial Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), Sardar Ali v. Mnhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287) and Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899) the suits could not have been decreed in favour of the pre-emptors after the aforementioned date. Accordingly, the decrees passed in favour of the pre-emptors cannot be supported.
2. Civil Appeals Nos.1382, 1383, 1385, 1386, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1392, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1405, 1406, 1409 and 1410 of 1990 have another common feature also. The suits relating to these appeals were instituted before 31-7-1986 and were also dismissed by the trial Court before that day. Learned counsel appearing for the pre-emptors in these appeals contend that section 34(2), the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, has expressly saved their suits and thus the rule laid down by this Court in the abovementioned and other cases that no decree could be passed in favour of the pre-emptor after 31-7-1986 is not applicable to them; consequently, the decrees passed in their favour even though on a date .Falling after 31-7-1986 are immune from challenge. Section 34(2), ibid, reads as follows:-- "Nothwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in the cases and appeals filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (I of 1913) in which judgments and decrees had been passed. Before the 1st day of August, 1986, further proceedings if any relating to such cases and appeals shall notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act be governed and continued in accordance with the provisions thereof."
' It is argued that as trial Court finally decided these suits before 1-8-1986 even though against them, by operation of the above subsection their rights were to be governed by the old Pre- emption Act. To strengthen this contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif (1992 SCM R 1129). This judgment, no doubt, ,.Upports the pre-emptors' contention.
3. The effect of a similar clause in the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act has been considered by this Court in the case of Rozi Khan v. Karim Shah (1992 SCM R 445) by a much larger Bench. The view taken in this case is that the expression 'judgment and decree' occurring in clause referred to those judgments and decrees alone which had been passed in favour of the preemptors. It may be mentioned that the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, was enacted to give effect to the judgments of this Court in the cases of the Government of N.W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, Sardar All v. Muhammad Ali, Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan et seq. The view expressed in the Rozi Khan's case, ibid, is in accord with the above judgments of this Court. We would accordingly reject the contention of the pre-emptors that even though their suits were not decreed before 31-7-1986 yet the decrees passed after that date stood saved by the provisions of section 34(2), ibid. We accept these appeals, set aside the decrees passed in favour of the pre-emptors and dismiss their suits. There will be no order as to costs.