This R.S.A. is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22-7-1993, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore, accepting the appeal of the defendants (now respondents), dismissed the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 17-6-1991, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs (now appellants) for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of the suit land had been decreed.
2. The brief facts leading up to this appeal are these.
3. Muhammad Sadiq defendant (now respondent No.12) was the owner of 580 Kanals 5 Marlas of land situated in the area of Village Mal, Tehsil and District Lahore. During the consolidation proceedings his entitlement was reduced to an area of 294 Kanals 17 Marlas. Dissatisfied with these proceedings, he took recourse to the higher forums. When his matter was still pending in the High Court, he, on 26-6-1968, entered into agreement to sell with Syed Ali Hussain Shah, the predecessor of the present appellants stipulating to sell 294 Kanals 17 Marlas of land to him for a sum of Rs.10,000. In the same agreement he also undertook to sell remaining land which he had lost during the consolidation proceedings, if he happened to regain it from the higher forum, for a sum of Rs.10,000 more, out of which he had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.3,500 as earnest money at two occasions.
4. When the matter arising out of the consolidation proceedings was still pending in the High Court, Syed Ali Hussain Shah, the predecessor of the appellants, brought a suit against Muhammad Sadiq (now respondent No.12) for specific performance of the contract of sale in respect of 294 Kanals 17 Marlas and obtained ex parte decree against him on 27-9-1974, persuant to which the sale-deed was executed through the Court and even a mutation was sanctioned.
5. It appears that Muhammad Sadiq succeeded in the High Court and he was restored the land which he had lost during the consolidation proceedings. Thereupon Syed Ali Hussain Shah; the predecessor of the present appellants, on the basis of the second portion of the agreement to sell, dated 26-6-1968, brought another suit against Muhammad Sadiq on 1-4-1977 and obtained another ex parte decree against him on 7-2-1979.
6. It seems that meanwhile Muhammad Sadiq defendant, on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell, dated 1-2-1968, sold his entire holding in the area of Village Mal, Tehsil and District Lahore, in favour of Ch. Sadiq Ali, the predecessor of respondents Nos.2 to 11 and one Muhammad Amin who later sold his share to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, the predecessor of respondent No.l(a) to respondents No.l(e) for a sum of Rs.40,000 and executed registered sale-deed in their favour on 18- 9-1968. This sale was given effect even in the Revenue Record and the vendees had statedly also taken possession of the land persuant to this sale. Despite this, Syed Ali Hussain Shah, the predecessor of the present appellants, while instituting suits for the specific performance of the contracts of sale against Muhammad Sadiq, did not implead Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and Ch. Sadiq Ali as defendants therein. Anyhow, they, having come to know about the ex parte decree, dated 7-2-1979, went up in appeal before the District Court which accepting the same remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh after impleading the appellants therein as defendants.
7. After the remand, Muhammad Sadiq vendor (now respondent No.12) and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf alongwith Ch. Sadiq Ali, in their respective written statements, contested the suit of Syed Ali Hussain Shah by which he sought to enforce the second part of his agreement to sell. Muhammad Sadiq vendor in his pleadings admitted the execution of the agreement to sell, dated 26-6-1968, in favour of Syed Ali Hussain Shah plaintiff but alleged coercion and undue influence. He also admitted the sale of the land to Ch. Sadiq Ali and to an intervenor who sold it to Ch. Muhammad Ashraf. His co- defendants, claiming themselves as bona ride purchaser of the land without notice of the prior sale in favour of their opponent, asserted the validity of the sale transaction.
8. On the pleadings of the parties. the learned trial Judge framed a number of issues and after recording the evidence of the parties (but without recording the statement of Muhammad Sadiq vendor who did not enter the witness-box), vide his judgment, dated 17-6-1991, decreed the suit.
Aggrieved by his decision, the defendants went up in appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment, dated 22-7-1993, and dismissed the suit after reversing the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the successors of the original plaintiff have come in second appeal to this Court.
9. During the course of arguments it has come to the notice of this Court that a suit tiled by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, who claimed the entire holding of Muhammad Sadiq as, vendees, had also brought a suit against Syed Ali Hussain Shah, the predecessor of the present appellants, and Muhammad Sadiq, challenging the ex parte decree, dated 27-9-1974, and that suit is still pending in the Court of Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, Civil Judge, Lahore. Similarly another Suit No.088-1/88 Filed by Ch. Muhammad Ashrafagainst Syed Mahmood-ul-Hassan etc. and Execution Petition No: 52/10 of 1991 titled as Syed Mahmood-ul-Hassan v. Sadiq Ali etc. are pending in the Court of Syed Ejaz Hussain, Civil Judge, Lahore. All these suits, including the suit giving rise to the present appeal, being in respect of the same property and between the same parties, need to be tried and decided together otherwise there is every possibility of conflicting decisions. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is accepted and not only the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court but also the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 17-6-1991, are set aside and case is remanded and nowentrusted to Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, Civil Judge, Lahore for trial and decision alongwith the abovementioned two suits after due consideration and recording of evidence.
10. Being an old litigation, the learned trial Judge is directed to give preference to the disposal of these suits and in any case he is directed to decide them before the month of March, 1994 is out, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court. Learned counsel for the parties are expected to extend full cooperation to the learned trial Court for discharging its mandate within the specified time.